Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amdt of Schedule) Order 1987 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Leith Hospital

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the future of Leith hospital; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Mr. Speaker, may I first explain to the House the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? He has a possible fracture to his left ankle and has been advised to move around as little as possible this week.
My right hon. and learned Friend has received 24 letters, mainly from members of the public, since the announcement last September that all but out-patient services would be withdrawn from Leith hospital.

Mr. Brown: As the National Health Service is supposed to be safe in the Government's hands, surely it is reasonable to expect a replacement hospital to be built before the present one is demolished. Will the Minister meet members of the local community, myself and other interested hon. Members to discuss this matter, bearing in mind that much fresh information has come to hand in recent weeks? Will he do that, or are we to be snubbed yet again by Lord Glenarthur — a situation that has been developing since the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland took over?

Mr. MacKay: I understand that the board plans to build a new hospital for the elderly in Leith. However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there are new and expanding facilities all over Edinburgh, including, for example, the new development of 144 beds and supporting services at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, which will be opened later this year for the benefit of all patients in Edinburgh, including those in Leith.

Mr. Eadie: The Leith hospital should come under the ambit of the Lothian health board, but how can we have any confidence in that health board when we know, from

recent appointments made to the health board by the Secretary of State, that people on that board with Labour sympathies were dismissed? Is the Minister aware that what happened in Midlothian is a perfect disgrace, because two members with Labour sympathies were dismissed and replaced by one Tory placeman?

Mr. MacKay: There is always a change of members of health boards. Some members serve a term, two terms, or sometimes more, and they are replaced by other members. We look, not to political affiliation, but to achieving a balanced representation on the health board that will run efficient health services. I would have thought that the Labour party would be interested in that aspect, and not in trying to make political points about appointments.

Cunninghame

2. Mr. Lambie asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to pay an official visit to Cunninghame district.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon and learned Friend had planned to visit Irvine earlier this week but was unable to do so. He has no other plans to pay an official visit to the area in the near future.

Mr. Lambie: I should like to send my best wishes to the Secretary of State and hope that he will be back and fighting fit once again.
The Secretary of State was due to plant a tree in my constituency on Monday. When I heard that he would not be available to do that, I took my own spade, but unfortunately I was not asked to do it, and the Minister with responsibility for health was brought in to do it instead.
Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the announcement by Caledonian Paper to come to Irvine and an article this week in the Daily Telegraphthat Irvine new town is now a prosperous place, there is still a hard core of 12,000 unemployed people in the Cunninghame area? Is he further aware that there is not only that hard core, but that one man in every three is unemployed? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and me to come to Irvine and meet the economic committee of Cunninghame district council to discuss the Cunninghame unemployment initiative which is aimed at reducing unemployment and helping everyone in the area?

Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the hon. Gentleman's good wishes, for which he will be grateful.
Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman must be feeling twitchy after this morning's opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald and may feel that it is time to start electioneering, it is surprising that he should raise this particular topic in the week when Caledonian Paper has begun to move towards setting up a paper mill in the new town of Irvine, which will create jobs for 1,000 workers during the two years of construction and 480 permanent jobs once the plant becomes fully operational in 1991.I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and see it as a sign of the improving economic position in Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: The Labour candidate for Cunninghame, South has less reason to be twitchy because of the opinion


poll than has the Tory candidate for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). May I ask that Tory candidate if he will guarantee——

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. My knowledge of Scotland is not all that great, but I hope that this will be about Cunninghame district.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister guarantee that if the Secretary of State pays an official visit to Cunninghame district it will be more successful than his recent visit to Cumnock and Doon Valley district, which neighbours Cunninghame, where unemployment is now the highest not only in Scotland but in the whole country? Will the Government at last recognise that the main centres of unemployment are not only the inner cities, and that the worst centre is the rural area of Cumnock and Doon Valley? Is he aware that the present proposals of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who is now whispering in his ear, to help unemployment in Cumnock and Doon Valley are insufficient and that we need a major initiative to tackle the problem?

Mr. Ancram: I shall answer rather briefly that fairly lengthy question. My right hon. and learned Friend's visits are always successful. It is not for me to comment on the success of local Members of Parliament.

YTS

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations in Dundee have been given approved training organisation status for the new two-year YTS.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): At 27 March 1987 six organisations in Dundee had been given approved training organisation status for YTS: full status went to Dundee college of technology, Tayside Road Transport Group Training Association and Dundee football club; and provisional status to Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce, Henry Boot Ltd. and Tayside regional council.

Mr. Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to study in more detail our correspondence over one particular organisation? Can he give me an assurance that we shall have a decision shortly that that organisation will not be given approved training organisation status for the new two-year YTS in Dundee?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to LINK, his complaints have been investigated and, to the extent that they were justified, have been remedied to the satisfaction of the MSC. Naturally, that organisation will continue to monitor progress.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce on the important role that it has played in youth training, not least in the commercial sector and, indeed, in north-east Fife, where it has been able to show that 100 per cent. of young people who finish a youth training scheme with it end up with a permanent job? Will he also carry the congratulations of the House to the Manpower Services Commission for the effective way in which it has ensured that no person under 18 years of age need lack a job?

Mr. Lang: That is a remarkable achievement, and I should like to take this opportunity to offer it my congratulations. The MSC is becoming increasingly proficient in an increasingly effective and useful scheme which offers great promise for young people of a better chance of a job afterwards.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are on the job training scheme are effectively being disbarred from entry into community projects? Does he intend to do anything about that?

Mr. Lang: It would be rather difficult for them to be on the community programme and JTS. Dundee has done very well out of the MSC schemes. Not only has JTS been pioneered there, but job club and restart have been pioneered there, as have a number of other useful schemes that are of great value to the city.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the new two-year YTS scheme Dundee United football club is not one of the approved bodies, but that it is probably the best trained and most efficient of all the football clubs in the United Kingdom and we should congratulate it on its appearance this evening in the semifinal of the UEFA cup?

Mr. Lang: These are controversial matters, but I certainly wish the club luck.

NFU Scotland

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend and I attended the union's annual dinner on 12 March, when a wide range of agricultural topics were discussed. I addressed the annual general meeting the following day.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for meeting a delegation of my hon. Friends and myself this morning to discuss the beef crisis in Scotland. Will he assure us again that he appreciates the seriousness of the crisis in the beef industry? We are looking for an early announcement of any increase that he could make in headage payments and of a devaluation of the green pound. I appreciate that these important matters will be discussed at the Council of Ministers' meeting at the end of the month, but, given the importance of this to the Scottish agriculture industry, will he confirm that either he or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will attend that meeting?

Mr. MacKay: At the moment there are no plans for my right hon. and learned Friend or me to attend the meeting at the end of the month, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I did this morning, that the Government are well aware of the strong feelings in the industry on beef in particular. I am well aware of the importance of beef to the Scottish farming industry. The CAP price fixing negotiations and proposals to reform the agri-monetary system are a major element of the Commission's proposals, and we shall try to ensure that an even-handed balance is achieved between our producers and producers in other member states.

Mr. Fairbairn: As a matter of Government policy, will my hon. Friend seek the fulfilment of the reasonable,


restrained and sensible suggestions that the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Ian Grant, made in his annual speech? His suggestions were reasoned and sensible. Will the Government give them their blessing?

Mr. MacKay: I am happy to echo my hon. and learned Friend's tribute to Ian Grant, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. We have had many discussions, and I am well aware of the view of the industry as seen from NFU headquarters and by farmers. The current Commission package is a tough one. We must take some difficult decisions against a background of soaring surpluses in many of the major commodities. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that I and my colleagues from other agricultural departments will be ensuring at the Council of Ministers' meeting and other meetings in Brussels that we safeguard the position of agriculture in this country.

Mr. Buchan: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, will he ask him, if he did not ask him last time, what his views are on the proposals of the British Commissioner, Lord Cockfield — aided and buttressed by that deplorable organisation, the EEC—on the introduction of VAT on food and what the position of the Scottish farmers will be in relation to that? Will the Minister assure us that his Department and the Scottish Office in general will resist such a deplorable tax on food costs, which would be the most monstrous thing to happen to food prices since the corn laws?

Mr. MacKay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's close appreciation and the way in which he follows the doings of the EC, and possibly also of the European Assembly, but Ian Grant has not discussed those matters with me and I do not believe that they are serious propositions.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that the House and Scottish farmers in general will view with concern the fact that neither my hon. Friend nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is geared to go to the discussions in Brussels. I sincerely hope that, in view of the crisis in relation to beef, cereals and the devaluation of the green pound, my hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take immediate steps to ensure that they go to Brussels to fight their corner for the Scottish farmers.

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend puts a great temptation before me to spend many days and nights in Brussels, as I have done on Fisheries Council matters. I have had no indications from the NFU of Scotland or the industry in general that they wish the negotiations in Brussels to be conducted other than on behalf of the United Kingdom by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman meets the president of the NFU of Scotland, will he take his opinion on the Minister's rather surprising policy declaration the other day, to the effect that any rural school with fewer than three teachers was educationally damaging and should perhaps be phased out?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not represent a rural constituency and does not understand what farming is about. Next time I meet Ian Grant I might

be tempted to ask him what damaging impact the Labour party's proposals to rate agricultural land would have on agriculture.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Did my hon. Friend discuss with the president of the NFU the serious impact on the beef market of the imports of Irish beef? Why does Irish beef continue to enjoy the benefit of our variable beef premium scheme as well as the advantages that accrue to Irish farmers at home?

Mr. MacKay: I understand and sympathise with the feelings of many Scottish beef farmers about the Irish situation, but that is a long-standing arrangement that was negotiated at the time of our entry, along with the Irish Republic, to the EC, which made it clear that the farmers in the Republic would have access to our markets and to the variable beef premium scheme. That is why it has come about.

Caterpillar Tractors Ltd.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further meetings he has had with representatives of Caterpillar about the future of its Glasgow plant; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: Our main objective is urgently to explore possibilities for retaining manufacturing operations and employment at Tannochside. In this connection officials of the Industry Department for Scotland are in regular contact with Caterpillar management.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister now accept that the people of Scotland want action, not just words, from the Government to secure an industrial future for the Caterpillar work force? Will the Government now take the plant and equipment into public ownership, either directly by nationalisation or through the Scottish Development Agency? Having done that, will the hon. Gentleman accept that he may well be in a position to negotiate constructively with Caterpillar about a future for that plant, perhaps supplying spare parts to the Caterpillar operation? If that fails, at least the equipment will be there to be used by other industrialists for the benefit of the Scottish people. It would be outrageous if that equipment, much of which has been substantially paid for by the taxpayer, were allowed to be moved out of the country.

Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to secure a future for the plant, but nationalisation has never solved any industrial problem in the past and I cannot see it as being appropriate in this situation either. However, I should like us to be able to gain access to the plant in order to help complete the profile that the Scottish Office is compiling through the SDA and Industry Department so that we can try to market the facility on a worldwide basis.

Mr. Hirst: When my hon. Friend or his officials next meet the management of Caterpillar, will he tell it that Scotland expects it to co-operate in any way possible in order to find a way to maintain. manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston? Will he tell the management firmly that it is simply not acceptable that it should try to cast the plant, its work force and the community aside like a soiled rag?

Mr. Lang: I share my hon Friend's views about the way in which the Caterpillar management has handled the


matter from the outset. However, I am also anxious to secure the future of the suppliers, and I am glad to know that the management is keen to help maintain the suppliers' relationship with Caterpillar in supplying Caterpillar factories elsewhere.

Mr. James Hamilton: The Minister is aware that Caterpillar is in my constituency and that some of my parliamentary colleagues and I have met him on several occasions concerning this closure. Will the Minister now take on board the suggestion that he should attempt some initiative to try to get the management, preferably at American level, to meet the shop stewards at the factory — despite the fact that they are sitting in — to try to resolve this pernicious problem? I am sure the Minister is aware that if he does not do that, unemployment—now 20·5 per cent. in the Motherwell district — will be tremendously increased. On that basis, the closure of the factory will be a tragedy for the area.

Mr. Lang: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close interests over a long period of time in the Caterpillar plant in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that ACAS has approached the unions on this matter and they have agreed to attend a meeting. Caterpillar management has also been approached and it is considering the matter.

Mr. Dewar: I know the Minister recognises—it has been illustrated in today's exchanges—that there is a sense of anger and outrage at the way in which the Caterpillar company has treated the work force at Tannochside. That work force has served the company loyally for many years. I believe that the House will be extremely pleased to hear that there is a possibility of mediation through ACAS. Will the Minister join me in urging the management to follow the example of the unions, to agree to that meeting, and to get talks started now? Such talks might remove some of the immediate difficulties about the position at the plant.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend and I share his feeling of outrage at the way in which the whole business of the closure of the Caterpillar plant has been handled. I am anxious to see mediation succeed and I hope that the initiative now in train will achieve that end.

Rates

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about regional council rates increases in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ancram: I have received numerous representations about the large rates increases made by many Scottish authorities. These increases are particularly disappointing since the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 is a generous one.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he has said, in the year in which the most generous rate support grant settlement for years has been given, it is nothing short of scandalous that Strathclyde regional council should be passing on a 19 per cent. rate increase to ratepayers? Does my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues have any plans to protect Scottish ratepayers from rate increases many times the rate of inflation?

Mr. Ancram: Obviously we will wish to consider the budgets of all authorities to see whether action is required. It is disappointing to have a rate increase of 18·5 per cent. in Strathclyde, especially as that authority, if it had spent at guideline for the year just ended and budgeted within the guideline for this year, could have achieved a 5 per cent. decrease in its rates. It only goes to show, as we have always said, that voting Labour means higher taxes, whether local or national.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not already clear from an earlier answer that the Minister's statistics are suspect, as he appears to believe that 42 per cent. recorded for the Labour party in an opinion poll is far worse that the 18 per cent. recorded for the Tory party? That is a remarkable fact. Certain Conservative Members are not twitching about the general election, because they are already politically dead.
Every regional council has increased its rates, with the exception of Grampian, by more than 10 per cent. That includes Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, which are not Labour-controlled. Strathclyde region had a 2 per cent. increase in its rate support grant—not a generous one, but well below the rate of inflation —while Lothian region had a nil increase in its rate support grant — again, not a generous one. The Minister's argument about a generous rate support grant is a load of nonsense.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with one sixth of the Labour party's support disappearing within a month, that is a matter for him.
The hon. Gentleman has argued constantly that if the proportion of rate support grant is held we can expect to see low rate increases. The proportion of rate support grant was held in Scotland this year and the average of rate increases is 15·1 per cent. If that does nothing else, it gives the lie to the argument that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Scotch Whisky Association

Mr. Pollock: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association; what subjects were discussed and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend met the association's public affairs committee last November. Among the issues discussed were taxation policy as it relates to spirits and the problems encountered in exporting whisky to Japan.

Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable concern within the association on this vexed question of the tax and duty treatment of Scotch whisky imports by Japan? Will he undertake to keep a close interest on behalf of the Scottish Office in the progress of the GATT case against Japan? If no satisfactory progress is forthcoming in the foreseeable future, will he consider it for possible inclusion on the agenda of the Heads of Government summit later this year?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, which I am sure will certainly be considered. I pay tribute to his close interest in this matter, which is so important in his constituency. I also congratulate him on his recent initiative with the Japanese ambassador. As he knows, the Government and the European Commission


are taking action under article 23 of the GATT to seek the rapid removal of discriminatory barriers. We hope that this will be successful in the case of Japan.

Mr. O'Neill: When the Minister next meets the Scottish Whisky Association, will he remember that the DCL-Guinness organisation is the largest single member of it? Therefore, will he ensure that stability in that firm is sustained and that it will not be at the expense of the possibility of introducing bulk export of malt whisky, which would endanger the long-term future of whisky, the bottle-making industry and the packaging industry, with which the whisky industry is so closely aligned?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are restrained on these matters anyway by the GATT and by European Community commitments. We certainly maintain contact with Guinness.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Has the Scotch Whisky Association made any representations to my hon. Friend about the severe disadvantages suffered by the industry due to the fact that it is now controlled from London by an Irish brewery conglomerate whose only genius was to acquire these brands by deception?

Mr. Lang: Despite the problems to which my hon. Friend refers, total exports have now exceeded £1 billion. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased at the transfer of Distillers home trade operations to Perth from the south of England.

Industrial Construction and Production

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the index of industrial production and construction in Scotland in the fourth quarter of 1986.

Mr. Lang: Estimates for the fourth quarter of 1986 are not yet available. In the third quarter the index of industrial production and construction, excluding oil and gas, rose by 2·4 per cent. in Scotland, compared with a 1 per cent. rise in the United Kingdom overall.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not the case that the figures for the whole of the past seven years show that the level of output in Scotland is running below that which the Government inherited from the last Labour Government? Is it not further the case that the Government are cutting by £100 million the Scottish Office budget? How can that assist in increasing output in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am not sure to which part of the Scottish Office budget the hon. Gentleman refers. Certainly it is the case that output in the last few years has been below the level of 1979. However, it is now very close to that and is being achieved with substantially fewer workers.

Mr. Hogg: That is an achievement?

Mr. Lang: It is an achievement in increasing productivity, which is the most secure guarantee of future employment.

Mr. Henderson: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the Opposition used to talk about the non-oil economy and are now less inclined to do so? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the improvements in productivity and efficiency in the non-oil sector of Scottish industry have resulted in substantial increases in employment?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing productivity in Scotland generally has

been increasing by about 6 per cent. over the years 1979 to 1985. Over the same time productivity in England was increasing by only about 4 per cent.

Mr. Kennedy: Did the Minister see the report in The Independent this week, which showed that out of all the constituencies in Britain the Ross, Cromarty and Skye constituency had the highest percentage increase in long-term unemployment — over 64 per cent? In terms of industrial production and construction—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members do not seem to be interested in unemployment in the Highlands of Scotland. Will the Minister look again at the regional aid map? If he does that he will see that the Government reduced substantially the incentives and the assisted area status that had been available to parts of my constituency to attract industry and create jobs.

Mr. Lang: The significance of the percentage increase to which the hon. Gentleman refers is dependent on the base from which it started. On regional aid, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, about 65 per cent. of the working population in Scotland are now in assisted areas, compared with only 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom. That represents about £62 per head, compared with £19 in the United Kingdom. The substantial increase in the coverage of regional aid as a proportion of the total since 1979 is from about 21 to 30 per cent., which reflects the importance that is attached to that matter in Scotland.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure—as Scotch whisky is one of the most successful— industries in Scotland—that the Japanese——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this come under the heading of industrial production?

Mr. Fairbairn: It does indeed. Will he ensure that our nips are available to their Nips at the same price as their nips are available to their Nips?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend puts his question in his own inimitable way. He might have asked me about the electronics industry. A recent survey showed that, because of that important industry, about 3,700 American jobs are coming to Scotland — unless a Labour Government are returned.

Mr. Dewar: I thought that that was a splendid example of the Minister's logical thought processes. Why does he maintain the charade of a successful index of industrial productivity when between the third quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1986 it has dropped by 5·8 per cent.? Why does he not address himself to the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg)? Does the Minister not accept that, taking this year against next year, there is a cut in the industry and economy budget of the Scottish Office from £344 million to £257 million? Does he defend that cut, and does it give him satisfaction?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the RDG1 scheme is about to end. Secondly, regional development grant is demand-led and cannot therefore be specifically cash-tagged in the way that he has suggested. Our budget has had to be increased by 26 per cent. from what we had anticipated a year ago, because of increased activity.

Aberdeen University

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will have discussions with the University Grants Committee regarding the financial situation and the future of Aberdeen university; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John MacKay: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but the allocation of grants to individual universities is a matter for the University Grants Committee.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not remember what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said last week about a new committee to run the universities. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a grave crisis in Aberdeen university due to underfunding by the UGC? This is leading to the loss of viability of a considerable number of specialised research units in the Grampian region. Will my hon. Friend take steps to do something about the funding of Aberdeen university, so that it does not have to close down before its 500th birthday?

Mr. MacKay: The principle of the funding of individual institutions is a matter for the UGC, and the UFC after it, and that is not in doubt. We have recently endorsed it in our White Paper.
In the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of United Kingdom universities in September last year, he gave an assurance that the Government would not consider any proposals for the closure of a university.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there are two problems that affect Scottish universities in general, and Aberdeen in particular? The first is that the University Grants Committee has had its funding effectively cut—particularly in view of the settlement for university teachers. Secondly, for the second time in only five years, Aberdeen university has been singled out for a depth of cut that makes it virtually impossible for the university to maintain a breadth of departments and future viability. Will the Minister intercede to ensure that the university is not victimised yet again?

Mr. MacKay: The decisions of the University Grants Committee are made on the basis of issues such as peer group review and an examination of the merits and strengths of each university. The recurrent grant is distributed at different rates to different universities. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the total amount of money for universities, of course the Government have attempted to control and constrain public expenditure. This has played the important role in the fact that productivity is up, inflation is down and tax rates are being reduced. Now, unemployment rates are falling, too. The universities have to play their part in restraining that public expenditure.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Would it not be more helpful to the University of Aberdeen, in assisting it to become more viable, if Ministers and academics were to support the principal in his efforts to reorganise the university and make it more suitable for the training and education of graduates, who would then have a ready place on the market? Should not that training be done more efficiently and within a shorter time?

Mr. MacKay: It is important that Aberdeen university should plan properly for its future. The proposals that my hon. Friend mentioned must be considered by the university, and by the UGC if the university puts them forward. That would not be a matter for Ministers. I should have thought that all sorts of proposals, radical and otherwise, are meat and drink to universities.

Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is answering this question and has not transferred it to the Department of Education and Science. All Labour Members appreciate this opportunity to discuss the problems of the University of Aberdeen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that he is answering this question when, only last week, the Government rejected the STEAC recommendations and refused to accept that the Scottish Office should have a say in the funding of Scottish universities?

Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he would play a part with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in giving guidance to the UFC on universities in Scotland and on institutions in the non-university sector. Before the Opposition, as usual, attempt to portray some part of Scotland as totally negative, I remind them that in the higher education sector—it is the same in all sectors—there are 10,000 more students in place than there were under the last Labour Government.

Emigration

Mr. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline those Government economic policies which are designed to stem the loss of population in Scotland through external migration.

Mr. Lang: The Government have in place a wide range of economic policies designed to reduce inflation and maintain a vigorous, enterprising economy — [Interruption.]—which offers the best hope of reducing migration from Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: I had some difficulty in hearing that answer, but I suspect that it was not worth very much.
Does the Minister accept the predictions of the Registrar General for Scotland that over the next 50 years the Scottish population will decrease by about half a million, or 10 per cent., because of adverse economic trends? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the disastrous result of English government over the years and that Scotland desperately needs new economic policies and a new Government of her own to secure a future for our people?

Mr. Lang: I would hesitate to lend support to a prediction that goes over the next 50 years. I suspect that over the past year migration has probably been related more to the decline in the oil industry. I hope that the irony of that fact is not lost on the hon. Gentleman or his party.

Dr. Godman: The communities of Greenock and Port Glasgow are suffering from this external migration. Will the Scottish Office now advise the SDA to increase the funding and staffing of the Inverclyde initiative to stem that migration?

Mr. Lang: I am keen to see the Inverclyde initiative proceed. I am glad that it has managed to secure some land


in that area. Since 1979 overseas migration has been lower than under the previous Government and, over the past three years, considerably lower.

Mr. Pollock: How do the figures for external migration compare with those in the Republic of Ireland, which follows a different set of economic policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the right kind of policy is to build on the success of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which, for the first time in more than a century, has secured a stemming of the tide of emigration from at least that part of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The Highlands and rural areas generally are doing well in terms of population trends. To some extent this is a result of the activities of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the SDA, whose role and budget we have expanded. As for migration within the United Kingdom, I suppose that there might be a possibility of Scots leaving Scotland in the face of Labour's tax-raising assembly, but then they would be driven out of the United Kingdom by the Labour party's United Kingdom tax policies.

Unemployment

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 30 January to discuss a wide range of economic issues, including unemployment. I hope to meet representatives of the STUC tomorrow to discuss Caterpillar.

Mr. Eadie: While I welcome the Minister's answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that unemployment is one of the major issues affecting Scotland? In my own constituency of Midlothian unemployment has increased relentlessly since the Government came to office. Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Pope this week that unemployment is evidence of moral disorder?

Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the rise in unemployment. However, I hope that he, like me, draws comfort from the fact that unemployment fell by about 8,000 in Scotland last month. That is the largest monthly fall for nine years, and if we persist in our economic policies we can look forward to continued falls in the future.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he discuss with its members the real danger of unemployment among the beef stockmen in the specialist beef sector? Unless action is taken as a matter of urgency to give a fair opportunity to the beef producers of Scotland, we shall see substantial unemployment and a repetition of the Highland clearances.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend who is responsible for those matters will have heard what my hon. Friend said. Certainly we are very keen to see employment maintained in rural areas.

Sir Russell Johnston: When the Minister meets the STUC about Caterpillar, will he have some specific proposals to put before it? Unless the Minister gives some evidence that the Government are prepared to act directly

to save 2 per cent. of Scotland's manufacturing capacity, all the talk about wishing unemployment to drop will be seen as simply pious nonsense.

Mr. Lang: The meeting is at the request of the STUC. However, I shall take the opportunity to point out that as soon as the sit-in ends and we are able to gain access to the plant, with the Caterpillar management, and complete the profile, we shall be in a better position to try to market the facility around the world and thus to secure employment at the plant.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Minister confirm that one of the ways in which the Government are trying to reduce unemployment is by encouraging health boards to use YTS youths in the hospitals and paying them £27·50 a week, instead of employing further, although cheap, nursing labour? Is he aware that five health boards in Scotland already employ 300 of those youngsters at pittance wages? This is no excuse for treating nurses as scandalously as the present Government are doing.

Mr. Lang: I have no responsibility for health matters. However, the hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do of the substantial expansion in the nursing population in Scotland. I hope that he, like me, welcomes the opportunity that young people are given by YTS to secure training and work experience and obtain a vocational qualification, and thus a better chance of finding a job after the training is completed.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: When my hon. Friend next meets the STUC, will he ask why it supports the introduction of a minimum wage, the abolition of the civil nuclear power programme, the cancellation of Trident and the rating of agricultural land and buildings in line with the Labour party, when that policy will result in 100,000 jobs being lost in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has hit four nails very firmly on the head. He is absolutely right. Almost every one of the Opposition's policies, when carefully analysed, would lead us to a drop rather than an increase in unemployment.

Renfrew District Council

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of Renfrew district council to discuss its recent economic initiative.

Mr. Lang: I met representatives of Renfrew district council on 23 January to discuss proposals for a local economic initiative, and wrote to the council on 10 March with my conclusions. I have received an encouraging response and hope that an agreement can be reached on the present proposals as soon as practicable.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister accept that, rather than an encouraging response in words, we should like some cash to fulfil the pledge that the Government gave at the time of the closure of the Linwood factory? Does he realise that the cost in public expenditure of the unemployment in Renfrew district is well over £100 million, and that that will apply to the projects under the economic initiative scheme? Putting that into public investment could wipe out entirely the unemployment facing my constituency of Paisley, South.

Mr. Lang: The SDA has agreed to meet half the initiative's operating costs and to second staff to it. It has


also committed itself to £4 million of environmental improvements. In addition, Renfrew council's current expenditure guideline this year is 7·7 per cent. above assessed need, and 4·2 per cent. above last year in terms of the inflationary increase. In addition, the SDA's LEGUP scheme has approved projects in Renfrew worth £270,000. So a substantial amount of cash is available from a number of different sources.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend explain to Renfrew district council that any sound, concrete proposal that it puts forward for economic regeneration in Renfrewshire will be greeted favourably by the Government and that the finances will be looked into? Until it comes up with the goods, we in this place cannot come up with the goods. Will he confirm that the phoney unemployment statistics that it tries to foist upon us are completely unacceptable and are no substitute for good ideas for the area?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most successful outcome of the initiative can be achieved by the co-operation of the district council and the Scottish Development Agency. I earnestly hope that that is now being achieved. I hope also that the arrival of Compaq in the district will enhance the employment prospects and the fact that the Sizewell order is going ahead will be of advantage to Babcock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Child and Sexual Abuse

Dr. Godman: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for offences involving child abuse and sexual abuse have been mounted in (a) sheriff's courts and (b) the High Court in each of the past four years.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): These statistics are not centrally kept and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

Dr. Godman: Those who are professionally involved with the treatment of child abuse and sexual abuse cases are concerned about the selection and training of sheriffs for children's panel proof hearings. Do the Government have plans to designate a small number of sheriffs to deal with such cases, as happens with adoption cases?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That matter has not been considered. However, because of his earlier interest in child appearances in court the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a Scottish Office project under way, entitled "The Child Witness". Research is continuing. That will probably cover the sort of point about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in cases of child abuse, in particular child sexual abuse, it is important to remember that it is the child who matters and that in the courts, and in every other way, we should make it possible for a child to give evidence in a manner that does not in any way disadvantage the child?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I think that all hon. Members appreciate that we should make every effort to ensure that the trauma that a child has experienced is not continued or revived through the consequence of a court appearance. Nevertheless, there is the conflicting

requirement that those who are accused of serious crimes —and they will be serious crimes if they involve assaults on children—are entitled to a fair trial. For that reason, as part of its review of the law of evidence the Scottish Law Commission is considering how evidence might be taken from children in circumstances that would in some way or another alleviate that trauma. In the meantime, everything is being done to keep to a minimum the problems for a child who has to appear in court.

Sir Russell Johnston: Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General must be aware that there is increasing concern among social workers in Scotland about the fact that neither the Crown nor the courts are handling cases of child abuse adequately or effectively. As for the matter that he raised — by which the hon. and learned Gentleman presumably means video evidence being given in court—does he not agree that the intense trauma of direct confrontation between the child and the molester must urgently be stopped? Furthermore, is not spouse corroboration a very considerable problem? I have in my hand a letter from a social worker who says:
I am engaged in one such case at the moment, where the word of a four year old girl means nothing in terms of evidence, despite its detail.
The social worker goes on to say that that girl will end up in a foster home. She also asks whether, as the girl grows up, she will wonder why she was fostered while her father remained at home, and she says that she will ask whether that was just.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I readily understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the position of children in court, but he has to face the fact that there is a serious dilemma. Those who appear before our courts are entitled to a fair trial. If they are convicted of the sexual assault of a child, that is a crime that we all take seriously and the courts are likely to impose a heavy penalty upon them. In those circumstances, we have to try to maintain a balance. We have to try to avoid trauma for the child, but at the same time we must try to ensure that the accused is able to present his case properly. I have already said that, in an effort to resolve these difficulties, the Scottish Law Commission is examining the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the position is already in hand south of the border.

Co-Star Ltd.

Mr. Lambie: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock has yet reached a decision in connection with the case of Co-Star Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The procurator fiscal has not received any report on this matter.

Mr. Lambie: Why is it that Americans can come to this country, set up companies, rob the regional aid system by illegal actions, make a lot of money and still escape prosecution?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the acquiring of regional aid is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that there has been fraud or other illegality, and if he will provide that evidence, naturally it will be looked at, not only by the


police, but by the procurator fiscal. All I should say in relation to the matter he has raised is that certain inquiries are still continuing.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the secretary and legal adviser to Co-Star was Mr. Graeme Adam, about whom a large number of complaints have already been submitted to the Law Society of Scotland and about whom I have written to the Solicitor-General on a specific matter of alleged fraud in relation to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson in Kilwinning. When can we expect a decision to be taken as to whether there is to be a prosecution of Mr. Adam in that case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot give him a firm date on that. However, he, among others, has made complaints not only to the Law Society of Scotland, for which I am not answerable, but to the procurator fiscal and the police, and I can assure him that the matters that he and others have put forward have been investigated actively.

Fox Hunting

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many complaints procurators fiscal have received about incidents arising from fox hunting; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as I can ascertain, during the past year procurators fiscal have received 10 reports of such incidents. Seven—involving 29 accused persons — resulted in prosecution. In the remaining three—involving 17 accused—decisions have been taken not to prosecute.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that on 19 January I wrote to the chief constable of Central Scotland police about an incident in my constituency on 3 January when some anti-hunt demonstrators, including two women, complained that they had been deliberately assaulted and their car had been vandalised by members or followers of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire fox hunt? Now, over 13 weeks since the incident, I am still awaiting a report from the chief constable. Will the Solicitor-General personally ensure that those hunting hooligans are prosecuted and that the police deal with such complaints more impartially and expeditiously until such time as the barbaric practice of fox hunting is abolished altogether?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Having seen the hon. Gentleman in an interview on television with a member of the Scottish Nationalist party, he is certainly in a good position to talk about blood sports.
He will appreciate that reports from the police and letters of his to the chief constable are not directly matters for me. However, all complaints that are made, and all allegations of assault involving fox hunting, be it supporters of the hunt or those opposed to it, are properly considered. If he would like to give me further details of the matter about which he is concerned, I shall see that he gets a reply from me once a report has been received by the Crown Office.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)

prejudges people on the basis of their legitimate sporting interests and regards as hooligans people who have not been charged and people who have not been convicted? What hope is there for the country when the Labour party does not even believe in the presumption of innocence?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. and learned Friend is right to pick up that element of prejudgement in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I should say to my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that where there are incidents over fox hunting we attempt, as best we can, to be even-handed and the prosecutions to which I have referred involve both those who are opposed to fox hunting as well as those who support it.

Property Rights

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any intention of introducing further legislation to protect the property rights of citizens in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Beyond the Debtors (Scotland) Bill there are no immediate plans to introduce further legislation affecting or protecting individual property rights. Any further reforms proposed by the Scottish Law Commission in particular will receive consideration either by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

Mrs. McCurley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that farmers and landowners believe that the introduction of regional parks in Scotland is tantamount to the nationalisation of land by stealth? While existing legislation gives the right to the public peacefully to enjoy the countryside, no such rights are given to property owners.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The introduction of regional parks is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, although I happened to introduce that piece of legislation as a private Member's Bill. However, if my hon. Friend will let me know whether farmers have particular complaints in the regional park within her constituency, and whether there have been any criminal activities, I shall make sure that they are properly investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

LONDON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNCILS (ANNUAL ELECTIONS)

Dr. John Cunningham, supported by Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Allen McKay, presented a Bill to provide that London Borough Councillors and non-metropolitan district councillors shall be elected for a three-year term with one-third retiring annually; and to make transitional provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Considering the draw for Prime Minister's questions, perhaps I am the last person to complain about questions not being called, but you will notice that on the Order Paper Question No. 40 is about the Zircon affair. I wonder whether there has been any request by Ministers to answer that question, because it is a matter of continuing importance and we have had no explanation of the outcome of police investigations into the BBC in Glasgow. As questions to the Law Officers started at 3.21 pm and you often call questions at 3.30 pm, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why, on this occasion, my question has not been called.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we started at 3.21 pm; we started at 3.20 pm. I have to take account of the business before the House on any one day. Today is a heavy day. It would not be fair or right on other hon. Members to go over the time that is set down for questions. I am sorry that I was not able to reach the hon. Gentleman's question today and also that he was not called at Scottish Question Time. I did try hard.

Notice of Motion

Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not been able to give you notice of this point of order, but I have just noticed what looks like a rather cruel April fool joke by the Table Office at the expense of Liberal party policies. I refer to the notice of motion now on the Order Paper, which is entitled "Promotion of Wind Energy".

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not the Table Office, but we are about to hear that.

Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it about a matter that arose today?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman, but I should tell him before he starts that I would not be prepared to hear a re-run of the 40 minutes of points of order that we had yesterday.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to re-run anything. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that you wrote to me, and that is not a re-run. It is a completely new matter. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week I wrote to you submitting that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) brought the House into disrepute and that therefore——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again pre-empt the hon. Gentleman? He must not draw attention to a matter of privilege about which he wrote to me and on which I have replied, because he will know that the Committee of Privileges reported on it a good while ago. It was precisely to prevent the raising of such matters on the Floor of the House in that way that the Committee reported. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not breach that rule of the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall comply exactly with what the Committee of Privileges recommended. I do not intend to read the content of my application to you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the reply, which was not dealt with in that Committee's recommendations.
You wrote me a letter, Mr. Speaker, and in so doing you have effectively prevented the House and the country from knowing your ruling on the application on contempt that I made to you. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be permitted to bring before the House that very brief letter because I cannot table it as a motion as a result of the rules that you very accurately and carefully set out for the House yesterday. Of course, it is only following yesterday's interventions that I now feel more free to introduce these matters in the way that I wish.
Mr. Speaker, in your letter of 7 April——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is precisely what I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to do. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on a matter of privilege. I replied that I was unable to give the matter precedence as a matter of privilege. He cannot go beyond that. That is exactly what the Select Committee laid down.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know of no rule in the whole of "Erskine May" or any rule of the House which prevents me as a Member of Parliament from raising on the Floor of the House a letter which you, Mr. Speaker, wrote to me, which should be in the public domain and about which the public want to know. We must be allowed to raise these matters. This letter is of public importance and some people may well construe it to be a historic document. It is your letter, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to allow me to bring it to the attention of my hon. Friends.
The letter reads——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: —to break our rules on this matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What rules?

Mr. Speaker: The Privileges Committee reported on this matter. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that it was stated that a matter of privilege should be raised with Mr. Speaker who would consider it — as I have done—and write to the hon. Member concerned saying whether Mr. Speaker would give it precedence over the Orders of the Day. That is exactly what has happened. The hon. Gentleman may not go beyond that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to read out my letter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You say, Mr. Speaker, that you are not prepared——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to read out my letter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If I am not allowed to read out this letter, I want to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. How can the letter appear in the Official Report? How can it arrive within the public domain? Tell me that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may legitimately table a motion setting out his views on the matter. That is what he should do.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: These are not my views, Mr. Speaker; they are your views. You are interpreting the rules as you see them. I put it to you that I am entitled to place this letter of yours——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am not prepared to break the rules of this House. The present procedure was fully debated by the House, and I abide by the decision then taken.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No; I am not prepared——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise another matter.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear one more point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the reply that you often send to hon. Members when they have raised matters of privilege, Mr. Speaker, you say that your function and responsibility is to decide whether a complaint of privilege should be given priority. May I ask you to explain to the House on what basis you decide whether a matter should be given priority?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for my discretion. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I take into account many considerations, one of which may be whether any offence has been committed in a parliamentary sense against this House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for


Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) consistently abuses — or attempts to abuse—the rules of this place. You made a very firm ruling several weeks ago. The House has been much better for that ruling. We implore you, Mr. Speaker, to keep the rules and procedures of this House in order. It seems most unfair to Conservative Members, who are behaving themselves, very properly, that the hon. Gentleman can indulge in such scurrilous behaviour time after time. It is politics by innuendo, and it is time to stop it.

Mr. Speaker: The House may rely on me to keep the rules of order in this House.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and your predecessors have said that the House has certain privileges. As I understand it, those privileges belong to the House as a whole. In law, they do not belong to individuals. This is a matter for the reputation of the House and for you, Sir. Understandably, in the country people are asking, "Is there one law for the rest of us and another law for Members of Parliament?" To ensure that there is confidence in the House, we must make it clear that the law applies to all.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said that the position of the Conservative Member in question was being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Today the newspapers contain a report—I have it in my hand, since Tory Members raised the matter—to the effect that it is extremely unlikely that any prosecution will occur. To avoid repeated points of order day after day, what action can we take to ensure that a Conservative Member who has broken the law is treated no differently from any of our constituents? That is the issue at hand.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House will accept that, where such accusations are made, that is a matter for the courts. It cannot be right, and surely hon. Members do not wish, that the House should resort to trial by innuendo.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the matters underlying this affair will be dealt with, and that presumably points of order will no longer be needed, as and when the law takes its course? When Labour Members have faced criminal charges, we have been content that the law should take its course. If hon. Members wish to conduct the debate in this way, they should be reminded that Opposition Members have faced criminal charges and have been convicted, and that we have been content that the law should take its course.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you remind the House, enjoying as it does absolute privilege, that it is not in its interests that Members of any political party should

make a political scene or a mockery of the conduct of Members on either side of the House, or that they should abuse your copyright in the letters that you write, and the trust that you put in hon. Members when you send letters, to make cheap, bad points? It does nothing for the honour of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have probably noticed during these exchanges, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has not appeared in the Chamber. That has helped you considerably, because it crossed my mind during the exchanges yesterday that had the hon. Member for Ynys Môn been here he would have heard some of my hon. Friends allege that the man was not honourable but was a cheat. That is the theoretical standpoint. Suppose that the matter continues for a while and eventually he turns up in the Chamber — and, in order to represent his constituents, he may eventually be forced to do that. One would expect him to come here. Then you, Mr. Speaker, will have a problem, which is the point of order. For instance, if an hon. Member says and believes that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is not honourable but is a cheat, a crook, and a swindler, will you throw that hon. Member——

Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. Members elected to this House are honourable. That goes for hon. Members on both sides of the House. In this country we are all subject to the courts. I repeat that this matter should be dealt with in that way and not by a process of points of order on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have seen the letter which you sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I have no wish to quote from the letter unless I have your permission or the permission of my hon. Friend, but I ask for clarification on one point.
I understand that part of the reason why no immediate action is being taken against the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is that it is considered that this offence was outside the House and was unrelated to parliamentary proceedings. But I understand that the hon. Member supported and voted for the legislation to privatise British Telecom which gave him the opportunity to line his pockets and commit this offence. Many people outside the House will ask, if that is not a breach of privilege, if that is not contempt of the House, and if that is not abuse of one's position as a Member of Parliament, what is?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House would not expect me to give reasons for the decisions that I take in the exercise of my discretion. The hon. Gentleman has advanced his views. We dealt with this yesterday. There are clearly laid down procedures for contempt. If the hon. Gentleman wants to proceed in that way, he can do so. He only has to operate the rules which we have. There is no point in raising points of order with the Chair.

Promotion of Wind Energy

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the generation of electricity by means of wind powered generators by encouraging appropriate research and development, reforming the rating valuation base for private wind generators and by providing for revised terms for the supply of electricity to the electricity boards from private wind powered generators; and for connected purposes.
Slowly but steadily, those with responsibility for securing our energy supply are recognising that renewable sources of energy can make a significant contribution to meeting our future energy needs. Of the various renewable alternatives, it appears that wind power is emerging as a front runner. Indeed, the Department of Energy seems to regard wind energy as the most promising of the renewable energy sources, with some experts predicting that up to 20 per cent. of our current electricity demand could be supplied by land-based generators and that an even greater contribution will be possible if we can successfully develop offshore arrays of wind turbine generators.
The potential contribution cannot be dismissed as marginal, as some have tried to do in the past. The purpose of the Bill which I seek leave to present is to help the development of this important energy resource. The Bill would have three principal strands: first, the promotion of research and development; secondly, amending the valuation base for the rating of private wind generators; and, thirdly, improving the terms under which private wind generators can sell electricity to the electricity boards.
It is only lair to put on record the fact that the Department of Energy, the generating boards, research councils and the private sector have already co-operated well in the research and demonstration programmes, not least in my constituency. Two generators are already operating on Burgar hill in Orkney, and a 3 MW machine should be operational this year as part of a construction, design and monitoring programme involving the British Wind Energy Group, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the Department of Energy. In Shetland a project is underway to establish how much wind energy can be fed into the Shetland grid and how wind installations might be operated in the most efficient manner.
Further south, the Central Electricity Generating Board is monitoring the performance of a recently opened vertical axis turbine at Carmarthen bay. The board has planned a 1 MW turbine for Richborough in Kent. Therefore, considerable research and development is already taking place. However, it is now necessary for us to look forward towards a major national wind energy programme.
A much increased purchasing programme by the electricity boards would give a considerable boost to our home-based manufacturers, enabling them to undertake more research and development and demonstration of their own, and would put them on a better footing to exploit the home market and to take advantage of the considerable export opportunities. If that is to happen, it is important that the underlying programme of reserach and innovative support must be undertaken by Government, their agencies and the research councils.
The British Wind Energy Association recently published a paper outlining what it believes to be a necessary programme of demonstration projects, research and development. It would not be realistic for the House to demand that the Department of Energy should slavishly follow that programme in every detail. However, my Bill provides that the Department should prepare and present to Parliament a five-year programme principally directed towards research and development and wind energy. It provides also for a programme of demonstration projects, which will be necessary to underpin a major expansion of wind power generators in this country.
The other two measures that are features of the Bill are intended mainly to help private generators. One of the principal aims of the Energy Act 1983 was to facilitate the sale of electricity produced by private generators to the electricity boards or to third parties on terms which, at the time, were claimed to be fair. Indeed, in moving the Bill's Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), then the Secretary of State for Energy, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated:
As a result of the Bill, private generators should no longer have cause for complaint. These measures will, I am confident, encourage the growth of private electricity generation in the United Kingdom." —[Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 867.]
The object of that Energy Bill, now the Energy Act 1983, was right and was supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, experience suggests that, in practice, it has not been as effective as was hoped at the time. No provision was made, for example, to take account of the heavy rates burden that has fallen on private wind generators. Indeed, in recent months, this has been focused upon by unsuccessful appeal of the Wind Energy Group against a rating valuation on its wind generator in Ilfracombe which, when rates were applied. amounted to half of the estimated annual revenue from the machine. In my constituency, a private wind generator has received a rates bill which works out at more than 60 per cent. of its estimated revenue.
I understand that the Department of the Environment's position is that any appeals for rates to be modified should be delayed until such time as the new legislation on local government finance has been put into place. However, the view of those involved in the industry, especially those involved in the manufacture or wind turbines, is that the time delay that that would involve would be too long.
What is needed, in their view—and, I hope, in the view of the House—is much more immediate action to ensure the survival and prosperity of our wind turbine manufacturing industry.
We shall not encourage the development of private generation by wind power if operators face penal rates bills. It is estimated, for example, that in relation to the generating costs of the electricity boards, rates bills amount to one sixth of a penny, whereas for those operating private generators they amount to 2p per unit. My Bill seeks to establish a formula whereby assessors would be obliged to consider the relatively low running costs of wind turbine generating plant, and fix the valuation with greater reference to profits or units produced rather than to the exceptionally high capital costs that appear to be the basis of present valuations.
My Bill would provide for fairer, more favourable terms to be provided by electricity hoards to those who are offering a private supply of electricity to the boards The


terms which electricity boards have been offering have not been as attractive as many anticipated and in many cases the availability charge has been particularly onerous. There is a case for an availability charge when substantial new plant and lines must be laid to a new wind farm development, but when electricity has already been supplied to a private generator it seems exceptionally onerous to impose an additional charge on the private operator. My Bill seeks to provide that such a charge should not be made where electricity is already available.
If we encourage the development of wind power, as I believe we should, because it is clean, renewable, can make a significant contribution to supplying our energy needs and because many believe that is one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity, we should be prepared to give private wind generators more favourable terms than they have at present. In the United States, favourable rates for the purchase of power generated are given in addition to tax and grant incentives. My Bill seeks to amend the Energy Act to provide more favourable terms than exist.
Wind energy is increasingly proving itself to be an alternative, cheap and plentiful source of energy. Developments to date have provided us with a skilled work force, experienced scientists, and a lead in this technology. If Britain is to maintain that lead, and if we are to tap the considerable potential for exports, it is important that our home market should now be given a substantial boost. The purpose of the Bill is to promote wind energy, particularly in the home market. I hope that the House will give me leave to present the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Tony Speller and Mr. Donald Stewart.

PROMOTION OF WIND ENERGY

Mr. James Wallace accordingly presented a Bill to promote the generation of electricity by means of wind powered generators by encouraging appropriate research and development, reforming the rating valuation base for private wind generators and by providing for revised terms for the supply of electricity to the electricity boards from private wind powered generators; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 June and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 16

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DIRECT THE CLOSURE ETC. OF ROADS

'The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the 1978 Act—
Power of Secretary of State of direct the closure etc, of roads.
19A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order direct—
(a) that any highway specified in the order shall either be wholly closed or be closed to such extent, or diverted in such manner, as may be so specified;
(b) that any highway specified in the order, being a highway which has already been wholly or partly closed, or diverted, in the exercise or purported exercise of any power conferred by or under a relevant enactment, shall continue to be so closed or diverted by virtue of the order.
(2) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), interferes with
(a) works executed in connection with the closure or diversion of any highway specified in an order under this section (whether executed in pursuance of any such order or in pursuance of the exercise or purported exercise of any such power as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above), or
(b) apparatus, equipment or any other thing used in pursuance of any such order in connection with the closure or diversion of any such highway,
shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) In this section 'relevant enactment' means section 19(2) or (3) above, section 17(2) or (3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, or the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of section 19(2) or (3) above.".'. —[Mr. Scott.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall speak briefly to the new clause because it represents no change of policy and will not lead to any more road closures. It is merely intended to clarify the legal basis of the closures which are already in force and which were authorised under a range of earlier enactments. A considerable number of highways and border crossings have been physically closed for many years under the authority of a general order made in 1970 under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922


by the then Minister of Home Affairs. The legality of that order has been preserved since 1973 by appropriate transitional clauses in emergency provisions legislation.
Any closure or continued closure of a particular highway on border crossing has social, economic and political consequences which must be considered in conjunction with security requirements. The decision appropriately rests, and should be seen to rest, with the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend and I keep the need for the closure of border crossings under constant review. The new clause will make it clear that the closure or continued closure of any border crossing has been specifically authorised by the Secretary of State and details will be published in the Belfast Gazette.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We find ourselves in the not uncommon difficulty on Report that a substantial slab of legislative material is placed before us which we do not have the same opportunity to examine in detail as would be available to us in Committee. In particular, this is probably experienced by other hon. Members in considering this and subsequent Government new clauses.
I am sure that the Minister will readily respond to the queries which arise in the minds of those studying the new clause. He has explained that it enables the Secretary of State, by an order, to validate—I am not seeking to use the correct legal expression—closures which have taken place under existing enactments and, particularly in view of subsection (4) of the new clause, closures which may have taken place under section 19 of the emergency provisions Act 1978.
The difficulty that some of us find in studying it is that it apparently applies, for example, to subsection (1)(b) of the new clause where highways already closed under those enactments have that closure confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State under the new clause, whereas in subsection (1)(a) he appears to be acting de novo. In subsequent (1)(a)—it does not seem that any other part of the new clause must he construed with that subsection — we are creating a new power for the Secretary of State to order the closure of a highway. No doubt it is desirable that there should be power, for emergency reasons and otherwise, for the closure of highways to be ordered.
This new clause is to be inserted in an emergency powers Bill, so presumably the only closure which is being envisaged in the new closures which would occur under subsection (1)(a) is a closure deemed necessary by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the emergency provisions Act. In other words, what one misses as to subsection (1)(a) is anything which directs the Secretary of State to have regard to the sort of considerations which in the other provisions of the Bill justify the powers which are taken in exercising his order-making power under subsection (1)(a). I am not certain that I am yet receiving signals that I have successfully transmitted my message to the Minister, so perhaps I may take another moment or two to make sure that, since we are not in Committee, my point has been seized.
If we take subsection (1)(a) as it stands and in isolation —it does not appear to be qualified by any other part of the new clause except by subsection (4), which does not interfere with what I am saying—it seems to create an unlimited power on the part of a Secretary of State by order to direct that a specified highway shall be closed.

That seems to be out of line with the general purposes of the Bill into which the provision is to be inserted. It does not, for example, say that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the closure of any specified highway is necessary for the purposes of the Bill, he may by order authorise its closure. It creates an apparently unrestricted and unlimited order-making power to close highways.
I accept that when we get to subsection (1)(b) all is well, because we are then dealing with highways which have been closed under enactments which give the Secretary of State power, for emergency purposes, for a highway to be closed. It may be that in subsection (1)(a) we have inadvertently created a new and unlimited power on the part of the Secretary of State by order to close highways and thus short-circuit the other provisions for so doing.
I am glad to have received some signals of comprehension, if not of agreement, from the Minister.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Those of us who foresaw the Bill and that within it there would be a lessening of the derogation from the normal practices will be disappointed by the proposing of the new clause. It deals with probably one of the most emotive issues in Northern Ireland life, yet here it is being re-enacted—because that is exactly what it is — in a piece of legislation that we had all hoped to welcome as an easing of the derogation from the 1978 Act. The Minister is aware of the problems that that has created in the past, is creating at the moment and will create in future.
The border of Northern Ireland is not a straight line running from A to B. It moves in an irregular fashion through different roads and through people's land. I know, from experience of my constituency and of the area in which I live, of the difficulties that this creates, especially for the farming community. I shall give an example of those difficulties. To get from one field to another, two farmers must travel approximately six miles to fodder cattle or till land in an adjoining field. This is an on-going problem for anyone involved in the agriculture industry. That work is not done once a week, once a month or once every six months; it must be done on a daily basis.
That is what the new clause deals with. It also deals with other aspects of people's lives. The shopping, communication and commerce aspects of many people's lives do not relate to Northern Ireland; they relate to the Republic of Ireland. Again, I can cite instances of people having to travel many miles to obtain the ordinary necessities of Fife because of the closure of border roads. That is an emotive factor. In the past it has created many problems for people.
I am not convinced that there are any security benefits in closing roads. I should like to hear the opinion of the Minister of State about the reduction of terrorist incidents. I should like him to show some proof of the effect of the closure of any road in Northern Ireland, or whether it can be quantified in such a way that it can be said that it has reduced terrorist incidents.
We need some definition of the term "highway". When we use that term, we are not talking about the type of road which is closed in Northern Ireland; we are talking about something different—that which runs through a person's farm and which is essential to his tending of that farm.
The new clause is a retrograde step, especially since we are dealing with an international agreement between the two Governments of the north and south of Ireland. At the same time as this agreement is trying to promote security and co-operation between them so that we shall be able to


live free of terrorism, the two Governments, which are beginning to work closely together, are blocking off the roads between their jurisdictions.
We must be in no doubt that that will be the net effect of this measure. No doubt the Minister will say that in effect it simply regularises the situation. The Minister may have some pangs when he starts to regularise that which is implemented under the infamous Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922. The Minister would have grave reservations about that. This is an emotive issue. The clause will make life very difficult for the people living in the border areas of Northern Ireland. It should be opposed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) focused his thoughts on the frontier region and drew attention to the inconvenience that would be caused. He represents a constituency in that region, so I suppose that that is natural. But it would be a great mistake to imagine that only the frontier region is affected. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that landowners and farmers were sometimes inconvenienced. He said that on some occasions they have to drive six miles to go into a field on the other side of the barricade. It may be of some small comfort for him to know that in an area surrounding one of our major airports a farmer whom I know has to drive seven and a half miles simply to get into a field that adjoins his dwelling house.
No one will deny that inconvenience can be and is caused. The hon. Gentleman said that some inconvenience has an effect on people's lives. However, if there is any possibility that these measures will preserve life, even if they result in the preservation of only one life, we must all accept and bear with fortitude the inconvenience and hardship caused by them.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) described this as a substantial slab of legislation, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made quite a meal of what is a modest tidying-up measure. Let me deal with the points that they made.
I can tell the right hon. Member for South Down that neither in the so-called Porter order of 1970—the order made by the then Minister for Home Affairs— nor in section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 was the power to close roads to be exercised only in relation to the emergency. We follow the same pattern in this legislation. But, in practice, no road has been closed under these powers except for reasons connected with the emergency. This measure is in an emergency provisions Bill and the power would in practice be exercised only in relation to roads where closure was necessitated by the emergency. That has been and will continue to be the practice.
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh takes odds with the fact that the Government consider it more appropriate to update the provision and to make it clear that the authority for this rests with the Secretary of State rather than on an order made about 17 years ago by a Minister for Home Affairs in a Stormont Government. There are serious political, social and economic matters which should be taken into account when border closures are being considered. Indeed, the

hon. Gentleman mentioned their impact on local farms, and so on, which we always take into account when we review these matters.
It is the considered judgment of the security forces in Northern Ireland—the police and the Army—that the sensible and selective closure of roads in the border areas in particular can make a substantial contribution to the improvement of security in those areas.

Mr. Mallon: Can the Minister tell us how many border roads are closed at present and where they are, because then we might be able to draw the same conclusion from that which the Minister is drawing from the opinion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army?

Mr. Scott: I cannot attempt this afternoon to enumerate the roads that are closed, but I can give the House an idea of the scale of closures. There are roughly 300 road crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Of those, approximately 100 are closed, of which about half would have been closed under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and about half under the so-called Porter order. That is the scale of present closures.
Both intelligence and observation show that a considerable number of incidents still happen involving the use of roads crossing the border. We need to look carefully, with the advice of our professional security advisers, to see when and where such closures, balanced with the other factors that I mentioned, can make a significant contribution to security. Sensible and selective closures can be of some help.
This is a tidying-up exercise. In itself, it will not result in any new road closures, but it will put them, including those which affect border crossing, on a proper footing.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister referred to the reasons for the closures which take place under existing legislation. I was just looking at section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the operation of which is specifically preserved by subsection (4) of the new section. In referring to the closure of roads it says:
so far as he considers it immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order".
It is not clear whether such a provision is imported into the terminology of new section 19A(1)(a).
It might be germane if the Minister could tell the House to what parliamentary procedure an order made under these powers will be subject.

Mr. Scott: These orders are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. They never have been and it is not proposed that they will be in this legislation. The part of the 1978 Act to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not refer specifically to the emergency, but I assert —I hope that the House will accept this—that the very fact that it is contained in emergency provisions legislation means that it would not be used for any other purpose. It has not been in the past and will not be in the future.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister assure us that we need not take literally his assurance that this legislation would not lead to further closures of cross-border roads? Did he mean that it would not necessarily mean the closure of cross-border roads, or does he preclude the closure of any further cross-border roads?
It might be well that those listening to the Minister would believe that that was the possibility. The most recent victim of terrorism in my constituency was murdered last Friday. His murderers escaped across a road which I have constantly drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, the previous Secretary of State and the Secretary of State before that. Despite the fact that the road is still used for the murder of my constituents, the Northern Ireland Office does nothing about it. Can the Minister assure us that he is not precluding the possibility of something more positive being done about that road?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman reads my words, he will see that I said that, of itself, this provision will not lead to the closure of more border roads. But, of course, proposals for road closures will be considered on their merits as they come forward from the security forces.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is noticeable that all the speakers so far have an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland because they are Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. But some of us have to try to grasp the matters without having such an intimate knowledge.
I have looked at section 19, and, short of war—one of the points that Sir George Baker made was that there is not a war, despite what some claim — section 19 appears to he adequate. I cannot understand the fundamental difference between the new clause and section 19. I know that there are deep feelings about this, but some of us would like to know the precise difference. Security forces anywhere, whether police in a peaceful situation or security forces in a difficult situation such as that in Northern Ireland, always demand more security than is justified at a fixed moment.

Mr. Scott: Approximately half the border roads are closed under the 1970 order made by the then Minister for Home Affairs. There is slight doubt about the legal validity of some of those road closures. The order was cast in wide terms and there is some legal doubt as to whether it was used properly to justify the closure of a particular road. Therefore, we needed to validate those closures where it is considered they should continue, but section 19 of the 1978 Act that enables the Secretary of State to authorise actions to close roads is not applicable because many of the roads have been closed for the past 17 years. We are seeking to validate those closures to ensure that they are on firm legal ground for the future and therefore validated by the Secretary of State upon authority that is published in the Belfast Gazette.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not follow the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister gave to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). He mentioned a border crossing that he said should have been closed and, as I understand it, he made that suggestion to previous Secretaries of State. Therefore, will my hon. Friend urgently undertake a careful investigation of the case for the closure of that border crossing in view of the appalling toll of murder in Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Mr. Scott: As I said to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), when the security forces put forward recommendations for road closures we consider them on their merits. Obviously what the hon.

Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has said will be drawn to the attention of the security forces, but I cannot go further than that at the moment.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister has informed us that one third of border roads are closed. When we consider the number of border roads that are surveyed by lookout posts and the number that have permanent checkpoints, we narrow down the number substantially. Again I ask the Minister what is the evidence over the past 16 years to suggest that the closure of any border road has prevented the type of murderous activity to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has referred? By closing a specific road, how do we know that one simply does not point the terrorist in the direction not just of another road, but along another route? Those routes exist across fields and towns right along the border. I hope that the Minister can quantify the evidence for us because it appears that, rather than being a deterrent against people involved in violent activities, such road closures have been used as a sop to those who wish to see the closure of border roads.

Mr. Scott: This debate was not intended to run into a general discussion of the principle of whether particular road closures or the general policy of border road closures is wise. Obviously there is a distinction between the views held by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and those who advise the Secretary of State and myself on security policy in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to rest on professional judgment in such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO SET TIME LIMITS IN RELATION TO PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR SCHEDULED OFFENCES

`The following section shall be inserted after section 5 of the 1978 Act—
Power of Secretary of State to set time limits in relation to preliminary proceedings for scheduled offences.
"Time limits on preliminary proceedings
5A. — (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, with respect to any specified preliminary stage of proceedings for a scheduled offence, as to the maximum period—
(a) to be allowed to the prosecution to complete that stage;
(b) during which the accused may, while awaiting completion of that stage, be—
(i) in the custody of a magistrates' court; or
(ii) in the custody of the Crown Court,
in relation to that offence.

(2) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) provide for—
(i) the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,
(ii) section 2 above, or
(iii) any other enactment, or any rule of law, relating to bail,
apply in relation to cases to which custody or overall time limits apply subject to such modifications as may be specified (being modifications which the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of any provision made by the regulations);


(b) provide for time limits imposed by the regulations to cease to have effect in cases where, after the institution of proceedings for a scheduled offence, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has certified that the offence in question is not to be treated as a scheduled offence;
(c) make such provision with respect to the procedure to be followed in criminal proceedings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of any other provision of the regulations; and
(d) make such transitional provision in relation to proceedings instituted before of the commencement of any provision of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Where separate counts of an indictment allege a scheduled offence and an offence which is not a scheduled offence, then (subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of the regulations) the regulations shall have effect in relation to the latter offence as if it were a scheduled offence.

(4) The Crown Court may, at any time before the expiry of a time limit imposed by the regulations, extend, or further extend, that limit if it is satisfied—

(a) that there is good and sufficient cause for doing so; and
(b) that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition.

(5) Where, in relation to any proceedings for a relevant offence, an overall time limit has expired before the completion of the stage of the proceedings to which the limit applies, the accused shall be treated, for all purposes, as having been acquitted of that offence.

(6) Where—
(a) a person escapes from the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court before the expiry of a custody time limit which applies in his case; or
(b) a person who has been released on bail in consequence of the expiry of a custody time limit—
(i) fails to surrender himself into the custody of the court at the appointed time; or
(ii) is arrested by a constable in connection with any breach, or apprehended breach, of any condition of his bail,
the regulations shall, so far as they provide for any custody time limit in relation to the preliminary stage in question, be disregarded.

(7) Where—
(a) a person escapes from the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court; or
(b) a person who has been released on bail fails to surrender himself into the custody of the court at the appointed time,
the overall time limit which applies in his case in relation to the stage which the proceedings have reached at the time of the escape or, as the case may be, at the appointed time shall, so far as the relevant offence in question is concerned, cease to have effect.

(8) Where a person is convicted of a relevant offence in any proceedings, the exercise, in relation to any preliminary stage of those proceedings, of the power conferred by subsection (4) above shall not be called into question on any appeal against that conviction.

(9) In this section—

custody of the Crown Court" includes custody to which a person is committed in pursuance of—
(a) Article 37 or 40(4) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (magistrates' court committing accused for trial); or
(b) section 51(8) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (magistrates' court dealing with a person brought before it following his arrest in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Crown Court);
custody of a magistrates' court" means custody to which a person is committed in pursuance of Article 47 or 49 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (remand);
custody time limit" means a time limit imposed by the regulations in pursuance of subsection (1)(b) above or, where any such limit has been extended by the Crown Court under subsection (4) above, the limit as so extended;
preliminary stage", in relation to any proceedings, does not include any stage of the proceedings after the accused has been arraigned in the Crown Court or, in the case of a summary trial, the magistrates' court has begun to hear evidence for the prosecution at the trial;
overall time limit" means a time limit imposed by the regulations in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) above or, where any such limit has been extended by the Crown Court under subsection (4) above, the limit as so extended;
relevant offence" means—
(a) a scheduled offence, or
(b) an offence in relation to which the regulations have effect in accordance with subsection (3) above; and
specifed" means specified in the regulations.

(10) For the purposes of the application of any custody time limit in relation to a person who is in the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court—
(a) all periods during which he is in the custody of a magistrates' court in respect of the same offence shall be aggregated and treated as a single continuous period; and
(b) all periods during which he is in the custody of the Crown Court in respect of the same offence shall be aggregated and treated similarly.".'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18— Limit on time between remand and commencement of trial—
`After subsection (5) of section 2 of the 1978 ACt there shall be inserted the words:—
(5A) No trial of a person charged with a scheduled offence shall commence more than 110 days from the date of that person's first remand for the said offence; when new charges are presented arising from the same circumstances a person's trial shall commence within 110 days from the date of the original remand for the original offence.
(5B) No voluntary bill of indictment shall be capable of extending that 110 days period for any person who has been committed for trial in relation to a scheduled offence.".'.

Government amendment No. 31.

Mr. Scott: New clause 19 arises from discussions in Committee and picks up the idea behind the amendment


tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who was supported by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). It reproduces, in respect of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland, the provisions of section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The new clause will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing time limits on specified preliminary stages of cases involving scheduled offences. I must emphasise, however, that it is only an enabling power and that we do not intend to introduce actual time limits immediately. Indeed, I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to introduce such time limits. The fact is that it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to take the necessary power for at least five years, when this legislation will come up for reconsideration. In the light of the widespread concern that was expressed in Committee about delays in coming to trial and the support given in Committee for the concept of statutory time limits, we decided that it was right to take the power now.
The new clause will give my right hon. Friend a power to set limits on the length of time that a person may be remanded in custody during any of those specified stages and provides that a breach of any such time limit will lead to the release of the accused on bail. It will also confer on my right hon. Friend a power to set limits on the total length of time to he allowed for any of those specified stages. It provides that if any such time limit is breached the accused person should be treated as having been acquitted. It also provides that the courts may, on application, extend a time limit in any particular case where they are satisfied that there is good cause to do so and that the prosecution has acted with all due dispatch. In introducing this new clause I believe that I am maintaining a tradition of concern and action on this matter by the relevant authorities.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have given sustained priority to measures intended to eliminate avoidable delays between first remand and trial, particularly in scheduled cases, in Northern Ireland. A list of the measures taken over the previous couple of years was given by me in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on 16 December 1986. Additionally, the relevant agencies meet regularly to monitor and evaluate the performance of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Their recent reports suggest, encouragingly, that the average period between first remand and trial in scheduled cases in Northern Ireland is likely to reduce over the next 18 months or so. This exercise has also demonstrated that the causes of delay are many and complicated and often arise from the defence rather than from the prosecution, notably when a defendant or group of defendants elect to wait until the defence counsel of their choice is available to act for them. I am certainly impressed and encouraged by the efficiency of the courts, the court service and the prosecuting authorities and their collective determination to eliminate avoidable delays. They have a heavy and particularly intractable case load to deal with and cannot be held responsible for the delays that occur in some cases.
4.30 pm
Despite that, and despite the encouraging prospect that average periods on remand will fall over the next couple

of years, we have decided that it would be right to propose the new clause. As I made clear in Committee, before introducing actual time limits we would want to take account of the experience gained in England and Wales of the operation of actual time limits in three police force areas. These are being applied from the first of this month, so it will be some time before any conclusions can be drawn.
It is also necessary to gather more data from the current monitoring and evaluation exercise in Northern Ireland that I described in Committee so that we can establish what time limits, if any, it would be desirable to set. Even then we would have to weigh the various arguments very carefully. Our objective is to maintain a degree of pressure on the criminal justice system and to set testing but reasonable targets for disposing of cases, with the aim of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and thus helping further to isolate the terrorists.
The Government would find it necessary to be confident that any scheme was unlikely to have the effect of procuring the release on bail or even the discharge of a person indicted for serious terrorist crime The background against which we are working in Northern Ireland is more serious and complex than in England and Wales. Therefore, any decision to introduce actual time limits is some way off and will not be an easy one. Certainly before taking a decision the Government will study most carefully the views of all those involved in the criminal justice process. Therefore, at the moment the Government are proposing that there should he an enabling power to introduce time limits. This is a powerful earnest of our concern to do all that we can to reduce delays in the administration of justice, and I hope that the new clause will command the support of the whole House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In Committee there was a general desire to see some limitation placed on the length of time elapsing between a person being taken into custody and being brought to trial in court. One's initial reaction to the new clause was therefore one of disappointment to discover that it was an enabling power and simply a power to make regulations. This disappointment is not lessened by a study of amendment No. 31, which, under your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are considering in conjunction with the new clause.
If I understand it rightly, that amendment specifically exempts the new clause from the operation of section 32 of the 1978 Act. This means that instead of the affirmative procedure applying to such regulations so that there would be reasonable debate on the occasion of their being brought into force, we would have the negative procedure, which in practical terms means that we shall not debate them at all.
Much of what the Minister said about the important considerations surrounding this specified length of time makes it all the more desirable that when a time limit is introduced as a matter of law the House should not merely have the opportunity, but should be required, to debate it before assent is given to the regulations. I hope that, even if the House is satisfied at this stage with a regulation-making power, the Government will reconsider tile desirability of making that exception in schedule 1, under amendment No. 31. There ought to be an affirmative


power governing the regulations made in so important a matter as this, and there ought to be a review of the circumstances in which that time limit is laid down.
I am sure that I am not alone in feeling disappointed that the Government have not found themselves able at this stage to write into the Bill that which will be written in due course into regulations. This is not one of those cases where the regulations have to be so complicated that it saves time and trouble all round to put the matter into regulations instead of into the Bill. Presumably the time periods that the Government have in mind could perfectly easily have been specified in the Bill by means of amendments to it.
The Government claim that it is too early to assess or to be able to determine, even experimentally, the time limits that would be practicable in Northern Ireland conditions. I am not sure that there will be general assent to that proposition, but even if there were assent there is a different way in which this could have been done. A provision could have been put into the Bill to impose time limits, and the commencement date of that provision could itself be left to ministerial order. If the Minister had proceeded in that way we could have had the time periods in the Bill itself and the Government would have the opportunity for which they have asked to consider the experience in England and Wales, and to consider the circumstances in the Province, without bringing that provision into effect.
Even in its present terms, this is not an offer that those of us who were on the Committee would be disposed to refuse. However, we would be understating the matter if we did not say that we are disappointed at having failed to write the limiting periods of time into the Bill, even with some possibility of delaying the operation of these periods introduced by way of an amendment.

Sir John Farr: I, too, wish to express some disappointment with what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office said. That is because what is at the moment in many respects a nebulous Bill becomes even more nebulous through this clause which contains no indication whatever of the time limit involved. My hon. Friend did not even refer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that probably 110 days was the ideal time. That is the time specified in his clause. Can my hon. Friend at least say whether he thinks 110 days is too long, or too short? Obviously, even one day is a day too long for a person who may be innocent.
Can my hon. Friend give the House any idea of when he expects these regulations to come before us? He said that that was not easy to assess and that it was still some time off. Can he help the House by telling us the average length of time that a person is held in custody before he is charged with a scheduled offence of the type that we are considering? We are perhaps not anxious to peer too far into the future, but this sort of helpful information must be available to the Northern Ireland Office and would help the House to understand a little better what the Minister has in mind. I have grave reservations about endorsing the new clause in its present nebulous form.

Mr. Mallon: Like previous speakers, I, too, feel a sense of disappointment. In Committee this was one of the areas about which there was a consensus that positive changes

were needed. This is a very small and lukewarm step and it is disappointing that the Minister has not seen fit to give us an idea of the time limits that he is considering.
This is one of the most emotive issues in the North of Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable, because some people have been on remand for upwards of three years. In effect, that is the equivalent of a six-year prison sentence, and the person serves it before he is found guilty. That is bad for any society and unjust to any person. I restate my disappointment that the Minister has not taken his courage in his hands, even on this small issue. At least he could have given an indication of the time limits that he envisages, and when those could become operative.

Mr. David Alton: Many hon. Members who did not have the benefit of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill are understandably somewhat mystified by some of the debates today. I took the trouble to have a cursory glance at the Committee Hansard, and I was impressed by the arguments from both sides of the Committee in favour of making the changes that were mentioned by the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).
In the Second Reading debate on 16 December my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said :
The time that defendants may be held in custody in Northern Ireland without a trial is a serious matter and one that should be tackled without further delay." — [Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1111.]
Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I would be interested to know what the trends have been and the average length of time that people are now being held in custody before being brought to trial.
Can the Minister tell us about the numbers of people involved, and whether different offences are treated in different ways by the court? Sometimes the defendants are to blame for demanding a different kind of legal representation or different counsel. How far is that the fault of the prosecution, because of its dilatoriness, and how far the fault of the police? It would be useful to know that.
It is worth reminding the House of what Sir George Baker said in his report :
One objective must be to concentrate the minds of the prosecuting authorities on speed or at least on reducing delay…I recommend that any prisoner who has been held in custody for 12 months or more without having been committed for trial must be granted bail without surety.
That is a straightforward, sensible recommendation. Although it is good to hear the Minister say that he concurs with its spirit, I hope that we shall move towards that procedure before too long.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the kind of procedure that should be used, and that it would be better in include it in the Bill now. I hope that we shall not resort to procedures that deny the House adequate discussions on these important issues.
A comparison has been made with the Scottish 110-day procedure. It is true that Sir George Baker pointed out in his report that the Scottish legal system is very different from our own and from that which applies in Northern Ireland. He said that it was not possible merely to translate the experiences of Scotland into those of Northern Ireland. Have the Department and the Minister had a chance to study the procedures that are used in Scotland? Does the Minister have any sympathy with the suggestion of 110 days that is contained in new clause 18?

Mr. Peter Archer: Clearly, there are deep differences between us about the whole area of emergency provisions. As I apprehend it, we are agreed that there cannot be a complete and precipitate return to normality in Northern Ireland, but we differ in our reactions to which measures are justifiable, which represent too draconian an invasion of individual rights and which serve only to alienate people and thereby bring the system into disrepute. Therefore, we differ as to which provisions are counter-productive.
4.45pm
In the course of our proceedings we have not resolved those differences—so much is clear from the debate—hut we have at least come closer to understanding one another's arguments than at any time—so far as I can recollect—in the past.
The arguments about the length of time during which unconvicted people are remanded in custody will be the subject of later discussion. I imagine that they will reveal deep divisions between us. However, the Minister of State has clearly listened to some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. To judge from the fact that new clause 19 was tabled at a late stage, I suspect that he may have had long discussions with his ministerial colleagues and, possibly, with officials. I shall not press him for further information about that.
The amount of thought that has gone into a measure is not always directly proportional to the number of words in it. Though it is clear from the length and draftsmanship of the clause that a great deal of thought has gone into it, I do not believe that it meets all the problems that were ventilated in Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and other speakers that we should have liked something much more robust. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down that amendment No. 31 displays a defensive attitude on the part of someone in the Government. If the clause were fresh and we were in a position to table amendments to it, many of us would readily do that.
I believe that we should encourage the Government in well doing. I should certainly not like it to be said of the Minister of State by his colleagues that all that he had achieved was to provide additional difficulties for the Government. We shall be pressing the Secretary of State—he may have made a rod for his own back—to use some of the powers in the new clause. In the circumstances, it represents some advance in the Government's thinking, so I venture to welcome it without prejudice to any representations that we shall make about the use of the powers. It is not wholly absent from my mind that a different Government at some time in the futurebe it near or far —may find it helpful to have the power on the statute book, so in the circumstances I venture to welcome the new clause.

Mr. Flannery: I want briefly to support the new clause because of a salutary experience that I had when I went with a delegation two or three years ago to visit the prisons in Northern Ireland. We made a point of going to the women's prison in south Armagh. It contained about 34 women and we spoke to every one of them that day. They were being strip-searched weekly and taken across to the

court. We even went into the detail of looking at the strip-search book, checking the rooms to see whether they were private, and walking the distance to the court to check whether they had contact with anyone on the way.
That was hard enough for anyone without experience to understand. Even more difficult were the conversations about how long those women had been there without trial. For an ordinary person, 110 days is surely quite sufficient. Some of those people had been there for a length of time that alarmed me. Some of them were there in connection with the Dropping Well pub bombing and, of course, we are shocked by such terrible things, but trial presupposes that the condemned person is innocent until he is proved guilty. It is bound to enrage people—especially those who know nothing about it—if they are kept without trial for an unconscionable length of time. That experience shook me, as it would any ordinary person who did not understand the process. I want to know how many people have been in prison for longer than 110 days, so that all of us understand the position on which to base our attitudes. That is why I support the period of 110 days, which seems a long time to be held without trial.

Ms. Clare Short: If I recall clearly, the Minister said that he thought it would be a long time before the Government would be in a position to bring in the time limits over which they have power in the new clause. There are such time limits in Scotland. There was general concern in Britain about long periods of detention on remand, which are not as bad as the periods that obtain in Northern Ireland. The Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that Britain should consider introducing time limits. The Government responded sympathetically by setting up feasibility studies on implementing time limits. The Minister of State did not tell us anything about setting up feasibility studies in Northern Ireland. Why not?
The Government are taking powers to bring in time limits. We all recognise that this is a new move, that there would be complications and that all sorts of arrangements and preparations would have to be made, but, if there is any good will and any real intention to implement those powers, surely the Minister should tell us that he will start a feasibility study, and tell us something about the time scale. If that is done, we can look forward to the implementation of these powers and to rapid progress in reducing the lengthy periods of remand in Northern Ireland, which are deplored by both sides of the House and by every party.

Mr. Scott: I must utter some sounds of disappointment, because what I had hoped was an earnest of good intent and a move in the right direction, albeit modest, has not been welcomed. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for being generous in the reception that he gave the new clause. The measure is a step in the right direction. I hope that it will be possible to have time limits, but they should be considered against the background that I outlined and the constraints that will continue to exist for some time in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), echoed by others, queried the use of the negative form of approval of the regulations that will be made under the new clause. The regulations will set time limits. There will be exactly the same procedure as will obtain in England


and Wales. We sought to follow as closely as possible the procedures under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which applies to England and Wales. The regulations under that Act will be introduced for England and Wales, when their pilot schemes have been carried through and evaluated, under the negative procedure. We thought it right to follow that procedure in Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the Minister had put in his new clause a power, by negative procedure regulations, to apply the same time limits in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales, I certainly would not have raised that point.

Mr. Scott: It would be unrealistic to imagine that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, with the complexity and seriousness of the cases that must be prepared for trial, we could set the same time limits that might apply in England and Wales. I should be surprised if it is possible to introduce time limits that are common across the whole of the jurisdiction in England and Wales. It may well be necessary to apply different time limits to different parts of the jurisdiction — for example, the Metropolitan police area has particular problems with delays in coming to trial and may require different limits from those set elsewhere in England and Wales. By choosing the negative procedure we are following what is happening in England and Wales.
There is much interest, of course, in what time limits might eventually be set. It is much too early to give any precise indication. We have to establish how long, on average, the various preliminary stages take and then decide what limits would maintain a degree of pressure on the system so that it operated without undue delays, without creating any unreasonable constraints on the system. The cases about which we are talking are, by definition, both serious and complicated. Any limits will certainly have to be longer than those applied in the pilot area of England and Wales and eventually introduced under regulation there.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister recall that in reply to a question in 1984 he said that the average time taken for cases to come to trial was 322 days? Surely it is possible to give contemporary figures to show whether that number has increased or decreased. What does the Minister regard as a reasonable time?

Mr. Scott: I was about to turn to the latest available figures on delays in coming to trial to show where we are now. In Northern Ireland, in the first six months of 1986, the average waiting time between remand and committal in scheduled cases was about 33 weeks, and the average time between committal and trial was 27 weeks, so we are talking of about 60 weeks in all between remand and cases coming to trial. The present position is unsatisfactory to a considerable degree.
As I said, as a result of the measures that I outlined in my written answer in December 1985, and the pressure that we are keeping up to reduce delays in cases coming to trial—all the prosecuting authorities, the police, the court service and the courts are involved—the next 12 to 18 months will see a substantial reduction in that figure. If we were to follow the proposal of the right hon. Member for South Down and set firm times for the various stages,

we would find that they would swiftly be overtaken by the improvements that are likely to take place in any case during that period.
I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). We are not running pilot schemes in Northern Ireland but, because it is a small jurisdiction, we are able, by monitoring the progress of the various cases through the courts, to have, in effect, the same ability to evaluate what is happening as the pilot schemes will give us in England and Wales. We shall look carefully at our measures to monitor and evaluate the progress of these cases through the courts of Northern Ireland. We shall obviously carefully follow the experiences of England and Wales under the pilot schemes. I hope that, in due course, we will be able to introduce regulations.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Do the Government recognise that if we can cut the waiting time there will be a tremendous spin-off, by cutting overcrowding in prisons in Northern Ireland? If only we have a policy that seeks to cut the waiting time considerably, big advantages will flow from it.

Mr. Scott: That is true. What is more, it is in the interests of justice that the delay should be reduced. Not everyone who is remanded for lengthy periods is found guilty by the courts. Obviously, we do not want people who eventually are found not guilty by the courts to be detained for lengthy periods of remand.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Where are the main difficulties? Does the RUC require more investigating staff, and should they be provided, or is the obstacle in the judicial process, in the courts? If there is a shortage of personnel in any respect, is anything being done to make good that shortage?

Mr. Scott: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that I provided for the Committee. It referred to the 13 steps being taken by the different agencies that have some influence and responsibility in these matters. In a sense, by definition, this reflects the sorts of problems that we were trying to overcome.
There remains the right of defendants to choose their counsel. There are a small number of defence counsel in Northern Ireland who have acquired formidable reputations. Often defendants are prepared to wait long periods and spend that time on remand in order to acquire their services. I believe that on the prosecution side we have already taken substantial steps, and the effects will begin to flow through the system in the coming months.
I believe that it will be right in due course to introduce regulations to give effect to these measures. We need more experience of our monitoring exercise to see how the England and Wales experiment turns out.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reference has been made to England and Wales, but I have some experience from a constituency case. Is there not something to be said for looking at Scottish law in this narrow respect?

5 pm

Mr. Scott: We have looked at the Scottish experience. At the end of 110 days, people in Scotland are released and regarded as acquitted by the courts. In dealing with the serious terrorist cases that we are talking about, the result of such action would be very dangerous men being released back on to the streets to cause more murder and


mayhem. We must consider the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and introduce measures that will reflect its needs, while keeping up the pressure to reduce what I freely accept causes widespread concern right across the community in Northern Ireland.
I hope the House will accept that in introducing the new clause I am giving an earnest of the Government's commitment to reducing those delays, and in due course —although I cannot say when—being able to introduce the regulations.

Question put, That the clause he read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 28.

Division No. 137]
[5 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Ancram, Michael
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Grylls, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hannam, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Harris, David


Baldry, Tony
Harvey, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bellingham, Henry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Benyon, William
Hayward, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Heddle, John


Blackburn, John
Henderson, Barry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hicks, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hirst, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Key, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knowles, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Knox, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lang, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Latham, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butterfill, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, David John


Cockeram, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Conway, Derek
McQuarrie, Albert


Coombs, Simon
Madel, David


Cope, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Couchman, James
Maples, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Marlow, Antony


Durant, Tony
Mather, Sir Carol


Dykes, Hugh
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Farr, Sir John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Miscampbell, Norman


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Moate, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forth, Eric
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mudd, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Neale, Gerrard


Galley, Roy
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick





Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Osborn, Sir John
Squire, Robin


Ottaway, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stern, Michael


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powley, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rattan, Keith
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Dennis


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Silvester, Fred
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Francis Maude, and Mr. Michael Portillo.


Spencer, Derek





NOES


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Livsey, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nellist, David


Clay, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cohen, Harry
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Taylor, Matthew


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Wainwright, R.


Flannery, Martin
Wallace, James


Heffer, Eric S.



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. David Alton and Mr. Seamus Mallon.


Johnston, Sir Russell

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

CERTIFYING OUT

`In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be inserted before "under" in Note 2 the words "triable summarily or an offence for which no sentence of imprisonment exceeding five years may be imposed, or;in offence.":.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Attorney General's Discretion—
'In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following note—


5. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Attorney General may, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, take into consideration, without prejudice to any other matters, any grounds on which it appears to thim that that offence could be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence consistently with the interests of justice having regard to all the circumstances.".'.

New clause 7—Attorney General's discretion to certify out—
`In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following note :—
5. The Attorney General, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, shall, without prejudice to any other relevant matters, have regard primarily to the seriousness of the alleged offences and the likelihood of any intimidation of a jury the effect of which would be to prejudice substantially the prospect of a just and fair trial.".'.

Mr. Powell: With these three new clauses that the House is debating together we come to one of the most important aspects of the Bill and to a subject upon which there was considerable unity of feeling in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. The three new clauses deal with two separate issues. I hope you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Question, That new clause 3 be read a Second time, should be put separately to the House. I understand that the official Opposition wish the Question on new clause 7 also to be put separately to the House.
Two different issues are raised by the three new clauses. Under the principal Act, a maximum list of scheduled offences is prescribed. However, offences that are so prescribed are not treated as scheduled offences if the Attorney-General performs an operation that has become slangily known as "certifying out The effect of new cause 2 would be to increase the number of listed offences that the Attorney-General has the power to schedule out.
The other new clauses deal with the considerations that the Attorney-General may take into account in deciding whether or not to schedule out an offence, thus causing it to be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence.
It would be a mistake to suppose that any of my hon. Friends or I wish there to be for any longer than may be absolutely necessary any divergence between the law and the process of law in Northern Ireland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, we look forward to the day when jury trial will apply in the Province as it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we find that there is a vicious circle into which any consideration of this matter is entrapped.
5.15 pm
Scheduled offences that are not certified out by the Attorney-General are tried by a judge sitting without a jury. It is claimed that that is the only practicable manner in which such offences, having a terrorist connotation, can be tried with any prospect of a fair trial and a just result. Unfortunately, however, there is no means of testing that assertion. Indeed, there has been no means of testing that assertion for the past 15 years or more. It is ironic that the principal reason for the establishment of the Diplock courts in the early 1970s was not anxiety about the intimidation of juries but the supposed risk of juries bringing in a perverse verdict. Therefore, the background to the institution of the trial of scheduled offences not certified out by a judge sitting without a jury is now

relatively far back in experience and rests on a proposition that, by definition, it has been impossible to test in practice.
There is a widespread feeling, which is shared in many quarters, that it would not be impossible for scheduled offences, even if there were a terrorist connection, to be tried in a court where the judge sat with a jury, but in present circumstances that is bound to remain a proposition that cannot be tested. Therefore, we are locked into a theory from which we cannot escape by any form of demonstration. There can be no experiment with the validity of the basis for the Diplock courts.
In Committee there was a general wish that we should obtain for ourselves some means of experimenting. The methods of experimenting that were considered differed, but I do not think that I am misstating the matter when I say that the Committee was united in its desire to find some escape from the vicious circle and some means by which, tentatively and experimentally perhaps, we may discover whether we are still justified in assuming that no scheduled offence that has a terrorist connotation should be tried in an ordinary court sitting with a jury.
Therefore, we are anxious to enlarge the scope of certification out. To that end new clause 2 is directed. It extends the list of scheduled offences to which the power of the Attorney-General to certify out is applicable. It does so in accordance with the specific recommendation of paragraph 134 of the Baker report, which recommended:
all scheduled offences which are triable summarily or which carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five years or less should be capable of being certified out, ie, as not to be treated as scheduled offences.
That is the simple and limited object and effect of new clause 2. I hope that it will commend itself not only to the House but to the Government, bearing as it does the recommendation of the Baker report, which it has been the anxiety of my hon. Friends and myself as closely as possible to regard as the standard to be applied in judging this legislation.
The mere certifying out of offences by the Attorney-General does not enable us to judge the continuing validity of the argument for the maintenance of the Diplock courts as long as certification out is limited, as it is at present. It is our understanding — I think this was made clear in Committee — that the Attorney-General in practice certifies out only where he is satisfied that there is no terrorist connection or connotation in the offence. For example, in the case of murder, if he is satisfied that the motives were domestic, he regards it as within his scope to certify out that particular offence so that it is not tried as a scheduled offence. However, we were led to suppose that the Attorney-General has regarded himself as, in effect, limited in the exercise of his certifying out power to removing from the Diplock courts cases where there is no reasonable ground for supposing a terrorist connotation or purpose in the offence.
Obviously if that continues to be the rule applied by the Attorney-General, although it is nowhere prescribed in the legislation, we shall never have any evidence or means of saying, "Here is a scheduled offence which is terrorist in connotation. It has been proved possible in practice to try it by an ordinary court with a jury. Therefore, we are free from the automatic assumption that a scheduled offence not certified out on the present rule automatically and for ever must be tried without a jury."
Therefore new clause 3 and, in a different manner, new clause 7 open the door of experiment to differing degrees. The door is opened more widely by new clause 7 than by new clause 3 because, in the nature of this type of experiment, if we are going to engage in it at all, all we need to do is to give an indication to the Attorney-General that, in the exercise of his discretion, on the basis of all the facts put before him, he is free, if he so decides, to certify out a scheduled offence notwithstanding the fact that there are terrorist or paramilitary overtones to that offence. It is in no way a direction that he should do so, but it leaves the consideration open so that he can take that into account. He would be free to take into account — indeed, he would need to take into account — any reasons there might be for supposing that in that particular case a fair trial was possible in the ordinary courts.
The material submitted to the Attorney-General, as it was explained to the Committee, already contains a far-reaching indication as to the exercise of the Attorney-General's discretion if he is given this additional hint. Of course, he has the power already and, as I understand it, there is no restriction at the moment upon his power to certify out. There is no specification of the grounds on which he must or must not certify out. Therefore, we are underlining the fact that there is no need for the certifying out power to he limited to cases where no terrorist connotation can possibly exist.
In short, in the clause we are inviting the possibility of experimental certifying out being explored, however tentatively, by the Attorney-General in the exercise of his responsibilities.
New clause 3 is a tentative hint. It may be that it is best to start such an experiment tentatively and, therefore, it may well be that new clause 3, as my hon. Friends and I believe, is a wiser approach than new clause 7. That will be a matter for debate. However, the purpose is the same, and I believe that it is a purpose which was felt strongly not only in Committee but quite widely in Northern Ireland and among persons of different political persuasions.
If we can, we would like to find a gradual escape, if it has to be gradual, from a system of justice that is not comparable to that which prevails elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is for that purpose that, in due course, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall invite the House to consider that new clause 3 be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can now deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) as to whether it would be possible to have separate Divisions on new clause 3 and new clause 7. Consideration has been given to that matter and the Chair would be prepared to allow a separate Division on one or other of those new clauses, but not on both. The House might like to consider the matter as the debate proceeds.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for that indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps during the debate there can he consultation through what are sometimes known as the usual channels about how that matter should be dealt with.
At the outset, I welcome the Attorney-General back to the Chamber, and particularly to this debate.
As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has just said, all the new clauses that are the subject of this debate are attempts to find a way to bring

about a gradual restoration of normal jury trial in Northern Ireland. It was in 1972 that the Diplock commission recommended the suspension of jury trial for what it called terrorist offences. It argued that there may have been miscarriages of justice in trials for alleged paramilitary activities, and it said that it was concerned not at the prospect of perverse convictions—it thought that an effective judge would be able to prevent that — but at the prospect of perverse acquittals. The recommendations were avowedly intended to increase the conviction rate.
That requires two comments at the outset. First, whether the interests of justice require an increase in the conviction rate must depend on whether it was guilty people who were being acquitted. What is a perverse acquittal is a subjective judgment. Secondly, it makes no contribution to reducing paramilitary activity or to protecting people from violence to convict the wrong people.
The Diplock commission produced no evidence that there were too many acquittals and, so far as I am aware, no one has shed any further light on whether there are, or were, too many acquittals, except to make assertions and counter-assertions. The Diplock commission said that too few people were being convicted and it went on to prescribe two reasons for that alleged situation. Its major argument, as the right hon. Member for South Down has reminded us, was that juries were prejudiced. One might have thought that prejudiced juries would sometimes be led into perverse convictions, as well as perverse acquittals, but the commission said that it was not troubled about that. It was concerned that prejudiced juries would let out those who should have been convicted.
At that time there was a property qualification for jury service and juries were predominantly Protestant. Therefore, all the fuss was about the danger of Protestant juries acquitting Protestant paramilitaries. Of course, since the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, any jury is likely to include members of both traditions. If jury trial were extended now, it is possible that there would he an undue number of jury disagreements. That is something that we have to see. It is something about which we can only speculate at the moment. The danger that most influenced the Diplock commission clearly no longer exists.
The commission said that juries might be being intimidated. It produced no evidence, but what is always said is that there is no record of people complaining that they are intimidated—"They wouldn't, would they?" If people are frightened, they will not go around announcing why they are frightened. That invites two comments. First" we sometimes speak as if, when we have explained why there are no complaints of intimidation, we have produced a positive reason for believing that there is intimidation. Explaining the absence of evidence is not equivalent to producing the evidence. At best, it is neutral. As there is some obligation on those who wish to base their arguments on the existence of intimidation to establish that it really exists, that burden of proof remains undischarged.
5.30 pm
Secondly, it is not true that jurors never complain when they are intimidated. There are many cases on record" certainly on this side of the water—for example, in the Central Criminal Court—when jurors have reported to a judge attempts to intimidate them. If there are no similar


cases in Northern Ireland, that must be some reason for believing that intimidation is not, and was not, taking place.
Indeed, we have a test even now as to whether there is likely to be intimidation if jury trial is restored. We know that there are cases being heard for offences which are not in the schedule and for which Diplock trial is not prescribed, but which have paramilitary connotations—cases of corruption, fraud and demanding with menaces, which relate to the methods by which some paramilitary organisations finance their activities.
If cases in which paramilitary organisations were interested immediately attracted intimidation, we would expect to hear of intimidation in those trials. In fact, we hear no such thing. Of course, I accept that that is not conclusive. What matters is whether jurors will perceive themselves to be intimidated. They have to go back from the court and live in local communities. That is why we cannot simply return to jury trial at a stroke. The House is probably agreed on that. However, we can return gradually, as the right hon. Member for South Down said.
As we take each step, we can monitor the consequences and see whether juries are perverse or whether they complain of being threatened. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the problem at present is that once we say that we are suspending jury trial because there is a danger of intimidation, we have no means of knowing whether there would have been intimidation if we had not suspended jury trial. We can learn that only if we return a step at a time. Until we break out of the circle, we have no means of knowing what the consequences would be if we broke out of the circle. Thus, we are exploring how we can begin the way back.
We agree with the right hon. Member for South Down. We can go back at least as far as the recommendation of Sir George Baker. The Diplock offences are not defined by reference to the characteristics of any specific case, and we accept that they could not be. There could not easily be a separate investigation in each case. Those offences are defined by reference to the statutory provisions that created them or to the common law name that has been attached to them. No doubt they are those categories of offences that were thought to be most frequently committed by those engaged in paramilitary activities, but even the authors of the original Act in 1973 recognised that they do not always have a connection with terrorism.
We are all familiar with the study by Mr. Dermott Walsh into people convicted under the Diplock procedure, in which 40 per cent. had no observable connection with terrorism. We know that the majority of the cases related to robbery aggravated by the use of real or imitation weapons. Many of those offences are committed, not for political reasons, but out of simple old-fashioned greed. When the category of offences that were capable of being certified out by the Attorney-General was extended in January 1986, that category was not included, although it was the category in which there was most obviously a problem.
Even if an offence is connected with paramilitary activities, it does not follow that it is appropriate to apply to it all the provisions relating to scheduled offences. So it was thought that someone should have the power to

consider, in relation to each specific case, whether those provisions should apply — hence the power of the Attorney-General to certify out in those cases.
The new clauses are about two things, as the right hon. Member for South Down said. New clause 2 provides that that power to certify out should be extended, at least to the extent recommended by Sir George Baker. We would argue that the Baker recommendations are not the ultimate in our ambitions, but anything less than Baker is totally unacceptable and new clause 2 seems to be the minimalist position that would begin the road back.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and concur with most of it. On reflection, does he not accept that it might have been an unnecessary imputation on the integrity of a jury that happened to be made up of householders that they would automatically discriminate against one religion because they were of another? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the real reason given to us in the early days for the abolition of jury trials was not intimidation of juries but intimidation of witnesses? That is not a reason for keeping the whole category. In other words, I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but I should like to pinpoint the fact that the only evidence of intimidation was intimidation of witnesses.

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a great deal in the Diplock report about the intimidation of witnesses, but it does not seem to me that that problem is somehow minimised if one abolishes jury trial. One needs witnesses, whether one has a jury or not. In so far as the argument rests on that, as the hon. Gentleman properly pointed out, that is not a reason for not returning to jury trial.
In many ways, new clauses 3 and 7 are to the same effect. The burden is that when the Attorney-General is called on to exercise his discretion on whether to certify out he should consider, not only whether the case has paramilitary connections, but whether, even if it has, the reasons that induced the authors of the Act to provide for trial without jury operate in that case. Is there a reason to fear intimidation of jurors or perhaps witnesses? Is there a reason to think that the jury would be perverse?
New clause 3 would give the Attorney-General a discretion, if it does not already exist, to take those matters into account. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, new clause 7 says that the Attorney-General must take those matters into account. We say that at least he should take them into account because they are clearly relevant to the decision that he has to make, but let me say at once that I do not feel so strongly on that that I would insist on a Division on new clause 7 to the exclusion of new clause 3. Perhaps we can discuss that.
The issue is simple. If the old, valued, venerated right to trial by jury, which generations of our forebears have believed to be an essential bulwark of personal freedom, is to be denied to certain defendants in Northern Ireland, that denial requires to be justified by specific reasons. Once that is settled, if it is to be denied in a particular case, it should be a case to which those specific reasons apply.
There are two very good grounds for trying to find a way back towards jury trial in Northern Ireland—not only that it is fair and in the interests of justice, but that


without it the Diplock procedure is more likely to alienate than to attract or inspire confidence in the legal system. It is less rather than more likely to bring terrorists to justice.

Mr. Alton: I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) say that he would not necessarily press new clause 7 to a Division. In the spirit of gradualism referred to by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and because of the need to return to as normal a system as possible, given the circumstances, in Northern Ireland, new clause 3 probably goes sufficiently far enough at this stage.
I want briefly to address my remarks to new clause 2. Sir George Baker's report has been referred to. Paragraph 136 of the report gives the most compelling reasons why we should follow the course advocated by the right hon. Member for South Down in new clause 2. Paragraph 136 states:
More importantly many witnesses have told me of robberies and aggravated burglaries which had no connection or certainly no apparent connection with terrorism or terrorists or paramilitary organisations but because 'a firearm, imitation firearm or weapon of offence was used to commit the offence' became scheduled and were not capable of being certified out.
If we can remove as many cases as possible from those categories to enable normal circumstances to apply, so much the better.
The Diplock courts in Northern Ireland at the moment deal only with scheduled offences— offences associated with terrorism as defined in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. There is widespread concern in the House and outside that the schedule is far too wide, in that offences committed by persons who are not connected with terrorism may nevertheless fall within the remit of the schedule. I understand that it was alleged in a recent study undertaken by the Cobden trust that no fewer than 40 per cent. of those tried by the Diplock courts had no apparent connections with terrorism. Therefore, I believe that it should be possible to deschedule cases that have no apparent connection with serious terrorist offences, to make them triable by a jury. I also believe that the list of scheduled offences should regularly and rigorously be examined with a view to excluding as many offences as possible. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say something about that possibility.
In relation to every scheduled offence, irrespective of where it appears in the schedule, the prosecuting authority should have a duty to consider whether the offence should be descheduled, and the descheduling should occur wherever possible. Furthermore, the accused should have the right to apply to the court to have his individual case descheduled on the ground that it is not connected with terrorism. That could take place either at the first appearance before a magistrate or in any subsequent appearance. The accused would have the right of appeal to the High Court.
Through the introduction of such safeguards, and perhaps as a result of the introduction of a panel of three judges, reductions in the size of trials, reductions in the delays before suspects are brought to trial and a statutory limit to remands in custody, many of the anxieties felt by hon. Members about the use of the Diplock courts can be set to one side. We all accept that there must be a gradual approach, and the right hon. Member for South Down phrased his remarks in terms that ought to commend

themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House. If there is a Division, I intend to follow up the support that I have given to the right hon. Gentleman in adding my name to the new clause by joining him in the Lobby.

Ms. Clare Short: The main factor that brings the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland into disrepute is that there are so many trials without juries. We had an important and useful discussion about that issue in Committee. We understand that current Government practice is never to certify out an offence in which there is any suggestion of terrorist involvement. That point was made very clear to the Committee.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): indicated dissent.

Ms. Short: I notice that the Attorney-General is shaking his head. I hope that he will give us further clarification about that.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that that was a self-defeating strategy. It means that so long as anyone is willing to engage in any kind of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland we will always have trials without juries. We are not on a path that will take us back to full jury trial.
My understanding, like that of the right hon. Member for South Down, is that the Government are not required, within the current powers to certify out, always to ensure that if there is any terrorist connection there should not be a jury trial. I very much hope that the Government—whose representative is not listening to my brief remarks — in responding to the new clause will at the very least, even if they do not accept the new clause, agree to some changes in the guidelines under which they currently operate. I hope that they will try to certify out initially —and I do not mind if the process is gradual in the first phase—some of those offences in which there is thought to be a terrorist connection to see whether a valid jury trial can take place.
It seems to me and to all people of common sense that it is in the interests of everyone, including those who have been charged with terrorist offences, that they should be tried by a jury. The current practice brings the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland into massive disrepute among the nationalist community. I cannot remember the figure, but a shocking proportion of the people in that community have no confidence or faith in the criminal justice system at the moment.
We were told in Committee that the Government will never certify out any case where there is any suggestion of terrorist involvement. We are asking for a change in those guidelines. We want the Government to try to certify out in certain cases as part of the progress towards a return to jury trial. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has been shaking his head, but we were told otherwise in Committee. I hope that he has better news for us today.

The Attorney-General: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his comments. We always consider the opinions and views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great care, especially on legal matters. His reputation as Solicitor-General will be remembered and respected for a long time by all hon. Members.
As a very new Solicitor-General I was present during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency


Provisions) Bill in 1973 and I spoke in the debate. After that I went to Belfast and spent a long time with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland working out the procedure that we would adopt. It is interesting that the Baker report, in paragraph 139, emphatically rejects the criteria that would be set out. I want to attempt to assist the House with one or two examples.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has resumed his championship—which he did so well in Committee—of the Baker report and he has challenged me to explain why the scheduled offences that are triable summarily or have a maximum penalty of five years should not be made capable of being certified out. I hope that I shall not bore the House, but I must describe those cases that are still left with that ban. There are very few. In summary, the exceptions are breach of the exclusion order; contributions towards acts of terrorism; withholding information about acts of terrorism; offences under proscribed organisations legislation; unlawful collection of information; training in use of firearms or explosives; offences under the Protection of Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; making and possessing a petrol bomb; obtaining property by deception, but only where nuclear material is involved; escaping from detention; clothing, hoods, masks and things of that sort. The view that I and the Government have taken is that those offences are likely to be committed only by terrorists. It would be wrong to extend my discretion to those when in practice I would be totally unable to exercise that discretion.
In a moment we will debate the criteria that I used in deciding whether to exercise discretion. I hope to persuade the House that if a particular case is "connected with the emergency", that is sufficient to justify a decision by me not to exercise discretion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to "any suggestion of terrorist involvement". The procedure is nothing like as remote as that. If a case is "connected with the emergency", there is a real risk—and this repeats the argument that has continued since 1973 — that the outcome of any jury trial would be affected either by intimidation or by the juror's fear of subsequent retribution.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned perceived intimidation. In the unhappily divided society of Northern Ireland, it is also possible that jurors trying such cases may be swayed by sympathy with or opposition to the underlying aims of those in the dock to return perverse verdicts. It would be to abandon common sense and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it could lead to many hung juries.
In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, those risks apply generally to any terrorist-related trial. If I were given discretion to certify out such offences, I would have to certify out cases which I simply cannot conceive would be covered by new clause 2. It is better that the mode of trial should he determined automatically on objective criteria by reference to the offence. My discretion to certify out mitigates the rigour of that approach and allows some cases involving scheduled offences to go for trial by jury, but my judgment is essentially subjective, and if we placed too much emphasis on it I might be put in an impossible position.
New clauses 3 and 7 address the basis on which I exercise the discretion conferred on me by schedule 4. I remind the House that the Government are firmly committed to the principle of trial by jury, and we look forward to the day when it will be possible to restore full jury trials in Northern Ireland. But, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded, that time has not yet arrived. There remains a clear risk that jury trials involving some offences in Northern Ireland would not result in true verdicts, either because of intimidation or because of prejudice leading to a perverse verdict. That is the justification for the Diplock court procedure.
The issue contained in the new clauses is the basis upon which it should be decided that one person is tried by a jury while another is tried in a Diplock court. The Government's firm view is that the decision should rest as far as possible on objective grounds and that it should be determined not by reference to the offender but by the nature of the offence. That avoids any requirement for what could be a prejudicial decision, based on a subjective assessment, that a case should go for trial before a judge sitting without a jury. Just as Sir John Junor frequently does in his column in the Sunday Express, comparisons will be made between one sentence and another. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman with his legal experience will realise, until one knows all the facts it is difficult to compare one sentence with another and to criticise them.
We recognise that that approach has limitations. That is why we have the fallback of the 1978 Act, which provides that I may certify some cases for jury trial. That exercise must rest on a subjective assessment, but at least the decision will not be prejudicial. For example, when a defendant appears in an ordinary Crown court, it will be because I have specifically decided that the offence has no terrorist connections. It could be summed up in a sentence —although I do not have the phrase exactly right—by saying that the offence should be causally, not coincidentally, connnected with terrorism.
In the light of the Baker report, Parliament has already significantly extended the scope of my discretion to certify out. I assure the House that I exercise those responsibilities with great care, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did while in office. I have maintained the practice of considering every case that is capable of being certified out, and I have tried to do so within 24 hours, because the granting of immediate bail may rest on my decision. I do so on the basis of a note about each case which has been prepared, with equal care, by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. The figures given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in the other place a short time ago show that, during the past five years, I considered 2,685 applications for certification and that I certified out 1,865 of those cases, which represents well over two thirds. That is a fairly large proportion, and it has come about because I receive the most carefully prepared notes on each case from someone of the rank of at least assistant director in the Northern Ireland Director's office. We do not rely on gossip or talk from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We need hard evidence before we refuse to certify out.
I suppose that I could consider whether, in all the circumstances, any risk would be involved in sending a case for trial by jury. I doubt whether there is a distinction between asking, "Will there be a fair trial", and the causal connection approach. In considering whether a case is connected with the emergency, I take account of the


likelihood that such cases, if sent for trial by jury, would be affected by intimidation or by the jurors' fear of subsequent retribution and the possibility of a perverse verdict. That is why we have the Diplock courts. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, those risks apply generally to any terrorist-related trial. So, when deciding to issue a certificate for a case, I must decide whether, if I authorised a jury trial, it would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice for those reasons. It would be wrong to apply a specific criterion along those lines, whether on the face of the legislation or not, because it would suggest that there should be specific evidence of a risk of a miscarriage of justice.
I have argued that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, such a risk exists in a general sense, regardless of the precise circumstances of each case. It would not be in the interests of justice or of the community to tip the balance towards jury trials simply because there may be no measurable risk of a miscarriage of justice in a case.
Those figures are available. I am sure that the House will accept my assurance that when I take decisions I am very well informed and do so with the greatest care.

Ms. Clare Short:: The figures could be read in two ways. Either the Attorney-General carefully allows the jury trial in the maximum number of cases—1,865 out of 2,685—or the present line is drawn badly and the Attorney-General must carry out much unnecessary, exhausting, detailed work when instead he should amend the procedures so that he need not spend so much time certifying out so many cases.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Lady is saying that. I should delegate part of it——

Ms. Clare Short: No.

The Attorney-General: I do not see how else we can do it while we have scheduled offences.
I said that I would give two or three examples. A terrorist, or illegally held, gun may be used by a man to murder his wife. That was an example given in the Baker report. We do not prosecute for possession of the weapon, which would be a scheduled offence, because it has been a long tradition in the Province that murder always stands by itself and is not aligned with other counts. If a police officer or a soldier used excessive force against a citizen —let us take the bad example of going as far as beating him up — and that citizen, purely in self-defence, punched the soldier to protect himself, I would certify out. If he over-reacted and produced a knife or an iron bar, it may be different, but we consider the matter as sympathetically as possible, as the figures show.
This has been a useful debate, but this is not the moment to move so far in the direction suggested by the right hon. Member for South Down.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:——

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 189.

Division No. 138]
[6 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Paddy
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Barron, Kevin
Boyes, Roland





Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bruce, Malcolm
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCusker, Harold


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Madden, Max


Clarke, Thomas
Maginnis, Ken


Clay, Robert
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David Gordon
Marek, Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cunningham, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dixon, Donald
Park, George


Dobson, Frank
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Garrett, W, E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Taylor, Matthew


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert


Janner, Hon Greville
Welsh, Michael


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Winnick, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfedder, James A.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Ron Davies.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil



Leighton, Ronald





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nick


Batiste, Spencer
Bulmer, Esmond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Benyon, William
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cash, William


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon






Cope, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Cormack, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Couchman, James
Moynihan, Hon C,


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mudd, David


Durant, Tony
Nelson, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholls, Patrick


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Onslow, Cranley


Fallon, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Farr, Sir John
Osborn, Sir John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Ottaway, Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pawsey, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forth, Eric
Powell, William (Corby)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Powley, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Price, Sir David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Renton, Tim


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Harvey, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Ryder, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heddle, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Henderson, Barry
Scott, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hind, Kenneth
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hirst, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holt, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Silvester, Fred


Irving, Charles
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knox, David
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Terlezki, Stefan


McCrindle, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maclean, David John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


McQuarrie, Albert
Ward, John


Madel, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Malins, Humfrey
Warren, Kenneth


Malone, Gerald
Watts, John


Maples, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Marlow, Antony
Wheeler, John


Mather, Sir Carol
Whitfield, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wood, Timothy


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mellor, David



Merchant, Piers
Tellers for the Noes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION

'In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following Note—
5. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Attorney General may, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, take into consideration, without prejudice to any other matters, any grounds on which it appears to him that that offence could be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence consistently with the interests of justice having regard to all the circumstances.".'. — [Mr. Molyneaux.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 188.

Division No. 139]
[6.12 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Alton, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashdown, Paddy
Howells, Geraint


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beggs, Roy
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kennedy, Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Kilfedder, James A.


Boyes, Roland
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leighton, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCusker, Harold


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Maginnis, Ken


Clelland, David Gordon
Mallon, Seamus


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cohen, Harry
Martin, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Donald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dobson, Frank
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Parry, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freud, Clement
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Garrett, W. E.
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Godman, Dr Norman
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive






Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael


Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wainwright, R.



Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Warden, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Henderson, Barry


Amess, David
Hicks, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Ashby, David
Hirst, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Holt, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Irving, Charles


Baldry, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Batiste, Spencer
King, Rt Hon Tom


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bellingham, Henry
Knox, David


Benyon, William
Lang, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Blackburn, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Bottomley, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lyell, Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McCrindle, Robert


Brinton, Tim
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Brooke, Hon Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bryan, Sir Paul
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Buck, Sir Antony
Maclean, David John


Budgen, Nick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Butterfill, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Malins, Humfrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Malone, Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Maples, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Marlow, Antony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mather, Sir Carol


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maude, Hon Francis


Cockeram, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Conway, Derek
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Mellor, David


Cope, John
Merchant, Piers


Cormack, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Couchman, James
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Crouch, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Moynihan, Hon C.


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mudd, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Nelson, Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Osborn, Sir John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gower, Sir Raymond
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Powley, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Harris, David
Raffan, Keith


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Renton, Tim


Hayward, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heddle, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh





Rowe, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Scott, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Silvester, Fred
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Speller, Tony
Watts, John


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitfield, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE

`After section 20(9) of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted the following—
(10)(a) In the exercise of the duties and powers conferred on them by this Act, constables and members of Her Majesty's forces may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in lawful arrest of offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
(b) For the purposes of (a) above, it shall not be deemed reasonable to use lethal force unless:
(i) the person using it reasonably apprehends immediate death or serious injury to himself or another person, and the use of such force is necessary in the circumstances to prevent such death or injury; or
(ii) the use of such force as is necessary to achieve the lawful apprehension of a person whom the person using such force has reasonable cause to believe poses a threat of imminent death or serious injury to himself or another person if not apprehended.
(c) In (b) above, 'lethal force' shall mean such force as is intended or likely in the circumstances to cause death or serious injury.".' — [Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, 'That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an attempt to grapple with a problem which has occasioned a great deal of discussion in the courts, political circles and academic literature. We had an enlightening debate in Committee which I found valuable and which helped to clear my mind. We are all in agreement that the rule of law applies to Government and Government alike. We believe that the law should be enforced, but that those who enforce it should themselves carefully observe the limitations on their powers. Those who enforce the law cannot be allowed to destroy confidence in the legal system and the courts and they cannot be permitted to place at risk the values which the law exists to protect. So far. we are all in agreement, but differences begin at the next stage.
Should the rules which are applicable to the security forces in Northern Ireland simply be rules which are applicable to the rest of the population so that the security


forces have no obligations and no exemptions which are not shared by the rest of us, or do the powers with which they are invested, the duties which we impose on them and the risks which they are called on to take require some different or more precise formulation?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for pointing out the enlightening article on the use of deadly force by Mr. R. J. Spjut in "Public Law" for the spring of 1986. He sets out the existing position. Existing law would provide a defence to a prosecution for the use of lethal force if it were applied in reasonable self-defence, the defence of others or to apprehend a person reasonably suspected of having committed an arrestable offence or if it was to prevent the commission of a crime or the escape of an offender unlawfully at large.
That does not end our problems; it raises numerous questions both about what the law now is and what it should be. There is what has been called the proportionality principle, and the report to the Criminal Code Commission expressed it in this way :
We take one great principle of the common law to be that, though it sanctions the defence of a man's person, liberty and property against illegal violence, and permits the use of force to prevent crimes, to preserve the public peace, and to bring offenders to justice, yet all this is subject to the restriction that the force used is necessary; that is, that the mischief sought to be prevented could not be prevented by less violent means; and that the mischief done, or which might reasonably be anticipated from the force used, is not disproportioned to the injury or mischief which it is intended to prevent.
That principle becomes important when the force that is used is sought to be justified by the necessity of preventing the escape of a fugitive. What crimes may he commit if he escapes, and what is the likelihood of his committing them? How immediate should those consequences be before lethal force is justified? What degree of force would be justified to prevent them? Without attempting to review all that has been said on the subject, the law as it appears from the cases is by no means clear.
We do not even know what instructions are given to members of the forces. The Ministry of Defence declined to publish the instructions on the famous yellow card, although it is not clear in what way that information would assist law breakers. Indeed, what purports to be the contents of the yellow card have been published from time to time. Mr. Spjut has alleged that they include instructions that there must be no firing of shots to warn or to wound and that any shots must he only to kill. There may be reasons for that, but if that is true it is somewhat surprising.
In Committee we debated whether the area where an incident took place could ever be a relevant consideration. I remember the forceful, cogent remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the subject and I understand the indignation of those who believe that the area where they live might be thought to be an area where lethal force could be justified, whereas other areas would not be. That would he an offensive suggestion to those concerned.
We find little help from Sir George Baker, who considered the problem in paragraphs 401 to 403, but concluded that the matter was not within his terms of reference. I do not propose to repeat the debate that took place in Committee, but it is important that the House

should direct its mind to these questions and give considered answers, and that those answers should be embodied in legislation.
That is necessary for three reasons. First, it is necessary in fairness to members of the security forces who should not be left in doubt about the extent of their powers and obligations. Often they must take decisions at a moment's notice on inadequate information and they should not have those difficulties multiplied by uncertainty about the options open to them. Secondly, it is important for the protection of the public. Those in an area of potential risk should be protected by clear provisions of which they and everyone else is aware. Thirdly, it is important to justify public confidence in the rule of law which has sometimes been endangered by events, as was made clear in the debate in Committee. We accepted the criticisms of our amendment in Committee. In drafting this new clause we have sought to take account of those criticisms. I shall not delay the House by going through its provisions in detail, but even if someone were to say, at this late stage, "We believe that these powers and obligations should be made specific and that account should be taken of the arguments which were used in Committee, but we do not agree with the precise way in which you have set them out in this new clause", I would not seek to go to the stake for this clause rather than any other.
It is vital that the House directs its mind to these questions because they cannot be left at large. The answers that the House chooses to give should be embodied in legislation.

Mr. Maginnis: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) should move such a naive clause. He has clearly demonstrated that he does not fully understand the position in which members of the security forces find themselves when facing dedicated armed terrorists whose single objective is to kill and maim members of the security forces and the civilian population with whom they disagree. The wording of the new clause is so naive that it verges on being insulting to those who must face armed terrorists day in and day out.
I shall describe a situation with which I am quite familiar. Let us suppose that members of an army patrol stop a car in the middle of the night and realise that three armed terrorists are getting out of it. They must quickly decide what level of force should be used to apprehend those terrorists. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that is laid down in the yellow card. They will use the minimum force which is necessary to effect an arrest. This new clause would bind them in their action, and that is especially illustrated in subsection 10 (b)(ii):
the use of such force as is necessary to achieve the lawful apprehension of a person whom the person using such force has reasonable cause to believe poses a threat of imminent death or serious injury to himself or another person.
Does that mean that a soldier must wait until he can decide whether a person carrying a gun will run away or turn round and open fire on him? That subsection would pose that question in the mind of a member of the security forces. It is not something with which we should bind our soldiers or policemen.
What does "threat of imminent death" mean? If I see a terrorist with a gun, I know that he intends death to members of the security forces or innocent civilians. What is "imminent death"? Is it within the next five minutes, the


next hour or the next week? I have a strange feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that it is not a period within the next week or couple of weeks, but if you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were likely to be the victim of a terrorist within the next week or two you and I would consider that death was imminent.

Mr. Archer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back into our counsels. However, if we are debating which of us is the more naive, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the formulae in the new clause differ from the decisions which members of the security forces have to make under the present law?

Mr. Maginnis: When members of the security forces fire their weapons— the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted at this—they intend to kill the person at whom they are firing. They do not fire them to warn or injure. There is good reason why that should be the case. A weapon is designed to kill the enemy. If it is used in any other way, it becomes a danger to the person using it, those, if they are members of an Army patrol, with whom the person firing it is patrolling, and to members of the public.
To draw up this strange criterion that we must expect our soldiers to use force which is not lethal in a situation such as is outlined in the new clause is to ask them to endanger themselves and other members of the public.

Mr. Mallon: As to what the hon. Gentleman said about the wording of the clause, is he saying that, in circumstances where these conditions do not apply, it would be right to use that lethal force? Either it should be constrained by the conditions laid down in the new clause, or, if it is not, it must surely be wrong to use lethal force. I am trying to establish whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Maginnis: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in any doubt as to what I am saying. I am not suggesting that force, other than the minimal amount that is required to effect an arrest—I am talking about terrorists, as, I presume, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was—should be used.
The trouble with the new clause is that it clearly states that it is not reasonable to use lethal force unless it is believed that death is imminent. What is "imminent"? An armed terrorist who escapes will be back next week, the week after or some time in the foreseeable future. In such a situation death will be imminent for a member of the public.
It is wrong to try to define the basis on which soldiers should use maximum force. That would be disadvantageous, and I implore the House not to give any consideration to a means of tying the hands of the security forces in protecting themselves and members of the public.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). He appeared to define the new clause in terms of a member of the security forces being faced by an armed terrorist. In those circumstances, any member of the security forces would, under the new clause, be more than justified in using lethal force. Anyone faced with an armed terrorist has a reasonable apprehension of immediate death.
However, the new clause seeks to deal with the circumstances that arose in the McElhone and Jones case

where McElhone, a completely innocent person, refused to stop when summoned to do so by a soldier. He saw the soldier's gun, was scared and ran away. Bang—he was shot like a rabbit. That is the situation with which we are trying to deal. McElhone was unarmed and there was no evidence that the soldier felt that he was under any threat at the time. There was no evidence that McElhone. if he had been known to the soldier, had been involved in any terrorist activity, and yet he was shot.
That is the situation with which the Standing Advisory Commission on Human rights was most concerned when it issued its press statement on the Bill. It said :
No opportunity is taken in the Bill to amend the law on the use of reasonable force as it applies to the use of firearms by the police and other members of the security forces. The circumstance in which resort may be had to the lawful use of firearms remains vague and unsatisfactory.
That was the situation after our debate in Committee.. The Minister of State was prepared to leave the law as it was — vague and unsatisfactory. Therefore, Labour Members, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in particular, sought to take up the argument of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and to introduce a clause which properly and carefully protected the security forces in the reasonable use of force, and lethal force if necessary, in all circumstances when they could reasonably apprehend that they, or people in the area, were likely to suffer serious injury or death from terrorist activity We did not want to go back to the McElhone situation, which was unreal and unnecessary.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) laid great stress on not liking the use of the word "imminent" in relation to violence from a terrorist? That suggests that he would support the armed forces shooting anyone known to be in possession of a weapon. whether they intended to use that weapon in one, two or six weeks. I cannot believe that lie really intended that the armed forces should shoot whether or not there was any danger of an individual being harmed by that weapon. That was the import of his speech, and that is a licence to a shoot-to-kill policy.

Mr. McNamara: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I thought that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone went too far when he made that point. In retrospect, I do not think that he would have meant it to apply in such broad circumstances. Most of us here would consider it reasonable for a member of the security forces to shoot on seeing a person suspected of terrorism carrying a lethal weapon, in an area where there is a good deal of terrorism, if, after apprehension, the person ran away. But one could not shoot on the basis that Mr. X might or might not have a rifle in his house which might or might not be used on some occasion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was saying, I am sure that no one would reasonably accept that as an interpretation of a proper use of lethal force under any circumstances.

Mr. Maginnis: I am not saying that.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has now qualified his position as that which I originally described as the circumstances in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West drafted the new clause.

Mr. Maginnis: I want to make it clear that in the McElhone case, with which I am familiar in so far as I used to teach in the area where McElhone lived, the soldier was brought to trial having been charged with rashly and irresponsibly causing McElhone's death. He had acted outside the guidelines laid down for members of the security forces. In that case the court accepted that the soldier had reasonable grounds for suspecting that McElhone was a terrorist, and he was released. But in another case, which has not been quoted, a similar situation occurred and the soldier was found guilty of acting irresponsibly. He is now serving a sentence of imprisonment for that.
Therefore, the rules by which soldiers and other members of the security forces are guided are adequate and responsible. The civil law is adequate to deal with any member of the security forces who acts irresponsibly or maliciously outside the guidelines. My point was that I did not want this new clause, which would cloud, not clarify, the issue.

Mr. McNamara: That was an interesting intervention. The two cases which the hon. Gentleman cited show the extent of the confusion over this important matter. It was said in the McElhone case that, because of the area in which the incident took place, one could reasonably accept that any person refusing to stop could be shot. It was, so to speak, bandit country—a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West referred.
The hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he did not mean the extension of the case that he put forward. Secondly, he accepted that there must be a reasonable use of force in such instances. Accepting that there is uncertainty in the law, the logic would be to follow my right hon. and learned Friend's attempt to define the circumstances in which lethal force can be used.
Finally, let me deal with the question of the yellow card. When my right hon. and learned Friend said that the instruction was only to use aimed shots and that that therefore meant shots to kill, not warning shots or shots to wound, the Minister of State appeared to shake his head. In Committee we outlined what we understood to be the contents of the yellow card. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is difficult to understand why it is a classified document. Any citizen should be properly entitled to know the orders under which members of the security forces are acting in their proper role of seeking to apprehend terrorists. That is a matter of common sense civil liberties.
Therefore, if the Minister of State does not accept what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I hope that he will state his reasons. More importantly, when he has finished talking to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will not only deny what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but produce the yellow card so that the House and the country may know exactly the circumstances in which our people are operating.

Mr Mallon: First, I should like to commend the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for trying to define the circumstances in which lethal force may be used. We must consider the other side of the coin because, in the absence of a clear definition, what will happen when the type of tragic situation that we have seen so often in Northern Ireland occurs?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a case that occurred some time ago and I wish to mention another, that of a young man named John Patrick Cunningham from Armagh. He was educationally subnormal and unable to hear or speak. He was terrified of any stranger. He was shot dead because, naturally enough. he ran away when stopped. That is the type of incident that we must guard against. That person was not carrying guns, nor was he in a position to know what was happening, but he had no defence in those circumstances.
Frankly, I was astounded by the line of argument put forward by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I do not believe that he meant to say what we interpreted him as saying. I interpreted his remarks as suggesting that in circumstances in which there was no cause for suspicion a person could be the victim of lethal force. That is a dangerous concept, and if it proves anything to us it proves the need clearly to define the circumstances in which force can be used. We must judge what the absence of such a clear definition means because, in the light of experience in Northern Ireland, there is a danger of abuse.
I wish to specify three incidents that occurred in Lurgan, in Armagh and in a hayshed in Ballyneary. The victims in those incidents are now known as the victims of the shoot-to-kill policy, otherwise known as the Stalker affair, otherwise known as the Sampson report. Those incidents would not have occurred had there been a clearly defined set of circumstances that laid down when force could be used.
In the three cases none of the people shot was carrying weapons. It is true that in the hayshed at Ballyneary there was an extremely old weapon. However, I believe that the Sampson-Stalker report will show that that weapon was inoperative and also that the RUC members who shot those young people knew that it was inoperative. In those three cases, no one was carrying guns but, not only that, the people involved, the victims, were under surveillance for a considerable period. That has already been proved as a result of the court case that has taken place.
What happens in the absence of guidelines? What are the wider implications and the effect on the community in the north of Ireland? The effect has been enormously bad. After five years, inquests have still not been held and no substantive report has been published. There is a large question mark in people's minds hanging over those incidents. What has been the effect on the police? Anyone who speaks to senior police officers will know that there has been a bad effect because it puts the good policeman who does his job properly in the same bracket as those who take short cuts and abuse their position. Moreover, we already know from one of the court cases that one of the constables who was charged was encouraged to commit perjury by one of his senior officers. That is bound to have a corrosive effect upon the police service.
It produced a lack of confidence in the process of justice which at that time could be quantified in the north of Ireland and which has left a dangerous residue. What about the effects on the career of an extremely good, able and professional man, John Stalker? What about the effect on the career of the coroner who, rather than continue the charade that was presented to him and proceed with an inquest on the basis of information that was palpably untrue, resigned his position. Such are the effects of the absence of clear guidelines. We must prevent such cases from ever happening again.
We can prevent such incidents only by closing the loopholes. The only way that that can be done is by clearly defining the circumstances in which lethal force can be used. We do not have that definition in the Bill and that is a grave mistake. It leaves us wide open to a repeat of what has happened in the past.
For those reasons, I again commend the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West for presenting the clause. I encourage him to divide the House because I believe that it is sufficiently important to justify doing so. I encourage all hon. Members to vote for the clause because it is crucial.

Mr. Flannery: We are discussing something that is extremely complicated, yet, in a curious way, it is simple. I well understand the problems of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) who, I am sure, has faced circumstances not dissimilar from those we are discussing. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a part-time officer and he must have been confronted with such situations.
I remember being over there myself—I am sure that many other hon. Members have had similar experiences —when a group of us, who had been out on a late night commitment and were on our way home, were stopped by a patrol at about midnight. I know what the Army is, many of us do, but I felt my back go cold when I saw the weapons around me. It was a terrible and difficult situation. People who must face such situations have my deepest sympathy. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) put his finger on it when he said that there is a loophole. It is necessary that we have a form of words to which reference can be made if anything goes wrong. It should be a cautionary measure for those people who find themselves in a difficult position.
There is always somebody who is nervous on such occasions and who possibly slightly loosens the safety catch when he should not. We all know that there are people who, on occasions, are trigger happy. The expression, "shoot to kill" did not come from nowhere.
John Stalker ultimately became a casualty of his inquiries, fortunately not a mortal casualty. That report has not yet come out. Those inquiries did not come from nowhere but were the result of incidents such as those we have already discussed. However, that inquiry is not complete, but nor are the guidelines in the law complete until this loophole has been filled.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone used the word "naive", but I am sure he did not mean it. This clause is a serious and honourable attempt —not emanating from one person—to close that loophole. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman ransacked his conscience he would discover that there were circumstances in which reference could have been made to such a clause—such incidents take place closer to him than to many of us. He is aware that, no matter what differences exist between us, we profoundly worry about the colleagues whom I am happy to see on the Bench behind me. I always make a point of saying that.
I commend this clause to the House. It is sensible and necessary and an honest addition to the Bill. I believe that we should divide the House, but I hope that the clause will be accepted, possibly without a Division.

Mr. Alton: The problem in a debate of this kind is that without the advice of Stalker or the Sampson commission,

and even with the Baker report, it is difficult to make a judgment on whether this new clause strikes the right balance in the safeguarding of civil liberties. I fully understand and agree with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). As hon. Members have already said, the number of references in the Baker report are minimal when it comes to the use of lethal force. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about what circumstances might make it legitimate for the security forces to use lethal force. They are in a very difficult position.
I should not want to be the person having to make a judgment about whether he was under threat of imminent death from a member of a terrorist organisation who might just have committed a crime and be running away with a gun in his hand. Under this clause, I would have to make a decision about whether I was at risk. This matter needs further consideration and is not best left to a Division of the House. We ought to ponder it at greater length.
7 pm
About 200 members of the security forces have died in the course of their duties since 1969. Probably what is needed is not legislation but more appropriate machinery which we should use to deal with cases in which it is alleged that the security forces have caused death or serious injury.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about the findings of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I agree with what he said about the secrecy surrounding the use of the yellow card. That matter ought to be more open and we need to understand more about the circumstances in which it is permissible for the security forces to use force. The standing commission noticed a striking contrast between the investigation of deaths caused by the security forces in Great Britain and those caused in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain there is a reasonably quick procedure which involves the suspension from duty of the officers involved. There is then a report to Parliament and a fairly rapid submission of a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
By contrast, in Northern Ireland there have been complaints that the legal representatives of the relatives of dead civilians have been unable to secure access to papers or evidence. There have been accusations of irregularities in the police files relating to such cases. The ninth report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights says:
While the circumstances in Northern Ireland do differ substantially from those in London (for example, as regards obtaining reliable evidence), there is nevertheless no sufficient reason why the deaths of civilians at the hands of the security forces … should not only be treated but also be seen to be treated as a matter of equally urgent and immediate concern.
It is my strong view that only an independent standing tribunal with investigatory functions can depoliticise the process of investigation. Such a tribunal would be required to investigate every case in which the use of force by the security forces has resulted in serious injury or in death. The tribunal should have a legally qualified chairman. Its members should be appointed for a fixed period of years by the Secretary of State. The tribunal would have the same powers as a tribunal of inq airy or local inquiry under the Police Act 1964. It would thus have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, insist on the production of documents, and take evidence on oath. Information could


be withheld from it only on the highest grounds of national security endorsed by the Secretary of State. In general, the reports of the tribunal would be published.
At present it is not the Government's practice to publish the instructions given about the circumstances in which force might legitimately be used. The relevant instructions have been seen by members of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In paragraph 24 of its ninth report it concluded :
We were impressed by the strictness of these instructions. If obeyed by the security forces, no member of the law-abiding public need be concerned for his safety and neither need members of the security forces equally fear breaking the law. However, we feel that the circumstances in which the security forces may open fire should be a matter of greater public knowledge and public debate. If the circumstances in which the security forces are authorised to open fire were more widely known, there might be less danger of persons' lives being put at risk.
That point was made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Even if it is not considered appropriate to reveal the precise contents of the force instructions or the yellow card, it is at least desirable that the general conditions in which fire may be opened by the security forces should be properly and openly discussed. The Government should seriously consider making the instructions public and more precise.
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent crime, to arrest an offender or to prevent his escape. In 1984 in the Farrell case the European Court of Human Rights took the view that this provision was far too broad. More precise rules should be laid down embodying the principle that lethal force should be used only when necessary to save life or to prevent serious injury. A precise rule of this type would make it easier for prosecutions to be brought against policemen or service men charged with illegitimate killings.
For those reasons, the new clause does not entirely fulfil the criteria that I have laid before the House. That is my view and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am reluctant to vote with the Opposition on this clause, and hope that they will not press it to a Division.

Mr. Scott: Let me say at the outset that I recognise that the use of force, and especially lethal force, by the police and the military in Northern Ireland is a legitimate ground for concern. Any incident involving death or serious injury in which the security forces in Northern Ireland are involved is fully and impartially investigated by the RUC and, as a matter of course, the papers have to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In this debate we have heard the views of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Those views illustrate the different perceptions that people have about this very difficult situation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) set out some admirable and uncontentious principles. However, the matter comes down to a single, simple question : should we rely on the law—"vague and unsatisfactory" is how it was described by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North—or should we seek to spell out in statute what the law might be and define it much more tightly than it is at the moment? The

right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned the principle of proportionality. While not saying that that principle has nothing to do with the matter before the House, again the question must be, should we try to spell it out in statute, or should we leave it to the courts to decide that the action taken was reasonable in all the circumstances?
Even the new clause shows how difficult it is to specify in legislation guidelines on the use of lethal force that would cover every possible eventuality. The present law gives the courts the freedom to take account of all the circumstances and to reach a proper judgment on whether the use of force was reasonable. If we attempt to specify the guidelines, as this new clause attempts to do, it tends to expose the difficulties of going down that road.
As it stands, I do not think that the clause would remove all areas of ambiguity from the law on the use of lethal force. In any case, on a matter of principle, the use of force should continue to be governed, as it is at the moment, by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. That Act provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the prevention of crime in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large. That rule applies to the exercise of ordinary police powers and to powers under the emergency legislation. It is also the basis of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which applies in England and Wales.
In responding to what has been an interesting debate, I have to stand absolutely on that point of principle. It is right that members of the security forces exercising emergency powers should be bound by the normal rule of law in relation to the use of force. That was the fundamental question put to us by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. Should they be treated differently because of the special powers that they have and the special situation that confronts them in Northern Ireland? To that question I have to give an unequivocal yes.
This new clause would apply one rule to the emergency powers and another to the ordinary powers. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to legislate on this matter in the Bill. I advise the House not to give the new clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Mallon: Is there not something contradictory about the position? The powers in the Bill and in other amendments to the 1978 Act are tested by the touchstone of "reasonable grounds" for arrest, search or stopping people. The essence of the new clause is that it puts the onus on the person using the force to have "reasonable cause to believe". I am sure that we all want to establish accountability, rather than having to make the decisions about whether the force was reasonable. In terms of accountability, and of consistency with the changes that are made in the rest of the Bill, the onus of having to have reasonable cause is much more powerful and effective than having to define the reasonableness of the force used.

Mr. Scott: I believe that in standing firm on section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 we were absolutely following that principle. It is for the court to decide whether the actions were reasonable in the circumstances. That is the point of principle on which I stand. Even the new clause shows how difficult it is to define precisely what alternative arrangements should be put in place. The new


clause does not remove all ambiguity from the law. The present position has worked well, and the I-louse would he wise to reject——

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in the course of his penultimate sentence. Will he address his mind to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and myself about the yellow card and information about it?

Mr. Scott: If I have not done so, it is because I believe that the instructions on the use of force by the security forces are not directly relevant to the debate. This debate is about the law that should apply. not about the guidance that is given by the Chief Constable who is responsible for the operations of his force, or about the instructions that the Army Council gives to its soldiers on how best to stay within the law. Those are matters of operational concern for those involved in the operations of the police and the Army respectively. This debate is about the law, not about the guidance that is given on how to stay within it.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that he is making a mistake about the yellow card? It is merely a restricted document—not a confidential or highly secret one. It would allay many of the fears that have been expressed today if the contents of that yellow card were made known. I do not doubt that other hon. Members have seen it. I, too, have seen it, and I think that nothing would be lost by allowing the public to know about the extremely strict rules under which members of the security forces must operate.
Does the Minister agree with me that matters that are not pertinent to the debate have been raised today? The problem that someone may be nervous or trigger-happy will not be remedied by this type of legislation.

Mr. Scott: The yellow card is not my responsibility but that of the Ministry of Defence. I believe that I am right in asserting that the contents of the yellow card are not at issue. What is at issue are the laws governing the use of force and lethal force. My contention is that it should be for the courts to decide whether the force that is used is reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore, I must advise the House to reject the new clause.

Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:——

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 185.

Division No. 140]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Deakins, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Canavan, Dennis
Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clay, Robert
Flannery, Martin


Clelland, David Gordon
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Foster, Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E.


Cohen, Harry
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)





Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Park, George


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Heffer, Eric S.
Raynsford, Nick


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hoyle, Douglas
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mallon, Seamus
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Sean Hughes.


Nellist, David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alton, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Amess, David
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Ashby, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Ashdown, Paddy
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Harris, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'flolk SW)


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Batiste, Spencer
Hayward, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Beith, A. J.
Heddle, John


Bellingham, Henry
Henderson, Barry


Benyon, William
Hicks, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hirst, Michael


Blackburn, John
Holt, Richard


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howells, Geraint


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kennedy, Charles


Bottomley, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Kirkwood, Archy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Knox, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lang, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Latham, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lawrence, Ivan


Browne, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lightbown, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Lilley, Peter


Butterfill, John
Livsey, Richard


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
McCrindle, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Macfarlane, Neil


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David John


Coombs, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cope, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Couchman, James
McQuarrie, Albert


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Malone, Gerald


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maples, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marlow, Antony


Fallon, Michael
Mather, Sir Carol


Farr, Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis


Favell, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fry, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)






Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spencer, Derek


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mudd, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steven
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Matthew


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powley, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wallace, James


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Woodcock, Michael


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Silvester, Fred
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

REPEAL OF SECTION I2 AND SCHEDULE I OF 1978 ACT

`Section 12 and Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 shall be repealed.'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a simple proposal. It is to repeal section 12 of the principal Act, which gives the Secretary of State power to inter someone without trial — not with a Diplock trial, not with a trial that is open to criticism, but without any trial at all. This provision places the liberty of anyone in Northern Ireland at the mercy of the Secretary of State. It is a draconian power and a worthy successor to some of those powers in the Emergency Powers Act 1920 to which a South African politician referred when he said that he would give up all the powers available to him for one section in the 1920 Act.
This provision has not been used since 1976. I do not believe that any Government would attempt to justify itsuse. It is not even in force. What is at issue is the power of the Secretary of State to bring it into force under section 33. Sir George Baker recommended that the provision should be repealed. He cited the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which said:

the retention of the power, perhaps as one of the last resort, is anathema to the rule of law and an obstacle to claims that human rights are as wholly protected in Northern Ireland as they ought to be in the current circumstances".
Sir George said :
the case for repeal of Section 12 is pressed not only by the various bodies concerned with human rights, as is to be expected, but by many others, including those who have been involved in operating detention. A summary of their experience is that detention never worked and never will work; it is always counter-productive in the end as well as costly.
One could not be clearer than that.
What is the argument about? When I raised the question on 20 December 1984 with the former Secretary of State, he said that it was important to retain the power in case of
a sudden short-term crisis, which might occur when Parliament was in recess."—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 581.]
That is not the proper approach to emergency legislation. The whole point of emergency legislation is that it is found to be vital to the public interest for the time being, but that it is clearly a distortion of the normal legal system and should be repealed as soon as we can live without it. It will not do to say, "Perhaps, one day, we will need it, so we had better keep it."
When the question was raised in Committee the Minister of State said, fairly, that he saw no prospect of that provision being used but
there is always the possibility of unforeseen sudden deterioration in the security position". — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 March 1987; c. 386.]
Sadly, there is no Government proposal on the Amendment Paper to repeal the provision in the light of that debate. It is not for me to speculate on the tussle within the Government between the appeal of the Minister of State for common sense and fairness and the dull repetitious chant of the old guard, "You never know" and "It is better to have the individual by the throat, just in case."
It is the function of hon. Members, especially those such as Northern Ireland Ministers, to tell the old apparatchiks that we do not run this country like that and that the public would not stand for it if we tried. I hope that that is right because, if it is not, freedom is no longer the healthy plant that it once was. The Opposition, at least, will give the House a chance to say, "Here is one emergency provision for which, if a case ever existed, no shred can now be made out." When that happens to a provision that was said at its inception to be introduced as a temporary measure to deal with an emergency, it is a power that the Government should relinquish.

Mr. McNamara: Hon. Members who were on the Committee hoped that there might be some change in the Government's attitude at the end of the debate on this matter. We now hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State that that is the case.
The point that I wish to make is that internment failed. It was the strongest recruiting force for the Provisional IRA; it almost gave it legitimacy. It turned a whole community against the rule of law in some circumstances. It caused grave difficulties, and it resulted in the deaths of many people — security forces, innocent civilians and members of both communities. It failed completely in the purpose for which it was introduced—to bring an end


to terrorism—because terrorism is still with us. It failed politically, because Stormont fell, the Unionists were divided and crushed, and eventually we had direct rule.
The whole history of this power has shown it to have failed absolutely—whether its aim was to preserve the Queen's peace in Northern Ireland or to be an effective tool to ensure that terrorism could not succeed or could be suppressed. Moreover, the essence of it is a complete denial of human rights. It means a person being picked up on the whisper of an unknown informer, or on the basis that he is a civil rights campaigner or active in a trade union, or that he happens to believe that the partition of Ireland is not the best solution to the problems of the 32 counties. The system failed, and the evil men who saw all the signs of it coming escaped. In the days after internment, the same evil men for whom it was intended were fighting street battles with the security forces. Internment is a complete loss, and it should go.

Sir John Farr: I share the views expressed so far about the desire to end the power to introduce or use detention. However, I should have thought it impossible to choose a worse or a more inopportune time to introduce the change.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, the power has not been used for many years. However, I believe that it must remain on the statute book as a weapon in the armoury of the forces of law and order, in case it has to be utilised again. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, to utilise it would involve a serious downgrading in the security position. But did he consult the security forces in Northern Ireland before he tabled the new clause? Has he obtained their advice on whether it would be beneficial?
I would expect the security forces to be almost 100 per cent. agreed in their answer, especially after the nights of rioting in west and north Belfast yesterday, the troubles in County Londonderry and all the other difficulties in the troubled Province. I would expect them to say, "Certainly we are with you, but not at the moment. It will be construed by the men of evil as a sign of weakness, and we cannot afford that."

Mr. Mallon: There have been two events in my life that I recall so well that I can remember exactly what I was doing and the exact moment in the day when I learned of them. One was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; the other was the introduction of internment in the north of Ireland.
I remember saying to someone when I heard about internment, "This is the end of the north of Ireland as it has been known since the state was formed." I think that those words were reasonably accurate. Internment was a watershed in the history of the north of Ireland. Most people would agree that at the moment when that terrible mistake was made the north of Ireland, as it had existed until then, was finished. We should keep that in our minds today when we debate this measure.
There are very few issues in northern Irish politics about which I feel certain, but I am sure about one thing: internment will never be used there again. It has been such an utter and terrible mistake and has fostered such violence, subversion and alienation, that I do not believe that any Government would make such a mistake again. I say that with a degree of confidence and not a little hope, for, if they were to do so, it would be said not just that it

was the end of Northern Ireland as it has been known since the state was formed, but that it was the end of the north of Ireland.
I do not believe that internment could ever be introduced again, given the demographic, political and social changes and the rise of paramilitary groups in the north of Ireland. In any attempt to achieve political stability that did not involve radical changes, those radical changes would have to take over.
Even at this late hour, I ask the Government to reconsider. Why should we keep on the statute book a measure that will not be used again and that, if it were used again, would be even more disastrous than in the past? Why should we not give a signpost to the people of the north of Ireland, showing that at least the Government had the conviction and the resolution to return to the highest and most normal standards—even if there were men of violence in the north of Ireland who did not wish it to happen? That would be a potent message from the Floor of the House to the people of the north of Ireland.
I ask the Government to act with resolution, because resolution will be needed, and also with realism, because, if they are realistic, they will accept that they are keeping a dead letter on the books.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke of what happened in the north of Ireland over the weekend. I should like to refer to that as well, but from a different perspective. Within the advice given in Northern Ireland, there is still the residue of a belief that problems can be solved by means of punitive legislation and force. The force that was used at this week's funeral must have revolted any person with any sensitivity or concern for human life and respect for the dead. It must have forced people to ask questions. It must certainly have forced people to ask why this enormous show of force was used on such a sensitive occasion when the only winners, at the end of the day, were those who were trying to manipulate it.
The argument that is advanced is that a show of force was necessary to prevent people from firing shots over the coffin. There is some validity in that argument. I f, however, we ask why shots are fired over coffins. the answer is that it is to get publicity. The net result of this ill-advised course was that they got two and a half or three days of free publicity worldwide.
One of my fears is that if this provision remains on the statute book, advice of that type will always be available. There will be those who feel that that is the way to deal with the matter and that, when they offer advice of that type to the Government, they are doing what is right. The way to prevent that type of mistake over internment from ever happening again is to make sure that that provision does not remain on the statute book.

Mr. Alton: I support what has been said. Internment will be regarded by those who write the history of the last 20 years in Northern Ireland as one of the saddest decisions that was ever taken. It led to the alienation of an already distanced group of people in Northern Ireland's minority community. I vividly recall the letters that I received and the conversations that I had with those who felt very emotional about what was happening in Northern Ireland. It caused enormous trauma. Internment led to the hunger strikes and to bitterness and death. I hope that such incidents will never be repeated.
I recall my first visit to the Maze, which must be one of the most extraordinary places that anybody can enter. I was shocked by the conversations that I had in the Maze and by the attitude of the people there. The attitude of most of them was formed during their period of internment. It provided a breeding ground that enabled the IRA and the other terrorist organisations to make many recruits.
For those reasons, I do not believe that the Government would ever contemplate reintroducing internment. This antiquated and unnecessary measure remains on the statute book, and I hope that we shall repeal it. It is very much out of line with the Secretary of State's approach. He accepts that if there is to be reconcilliation and coexistence in Northern Ireland the alienated community must be brought back into the equation.
Reference has been made to the events of the last 24 hours. They should be a useful signal to those who might be tempted to think that if battles are fought on the streets of Belfast they will bring about change. I have always disputed the view that that is the way to bring about change. The appropriate place to bring about change is in this debating Chamber. People should take their place here, whether from the Unionist or the Nationalist tradition, and work in a democratic Chamber to bring about the kind of society in which reconciliation might take place.
Reconciliation will not take place in H-blocks, through internment, or, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has just said, through punitive legislation. Reconciliation will be brought about by the kind of initiative upon which the Secretary of State has very bravely embarked in the last 18 months. Therefore, I hope that he will take seriously the new clause that has been moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)

Mr. Flannery: I do not know how much notice will be taken of this debate, but I feel confident that if we decide to abolish internment it will command attention. The abolition of internment would weaken the hand of the terrorists. Internment strengthened their hand. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has just said, it would demonstrate that we want conciliation to be brought about in Northern Ireland. Both communities would gain from the passing of new clause 6. Internment greatly strengthened the hand of the terrorists. The Government would be taking a progressive step if they removed from both communities the threat of internment.

Mr. Maginnis: I have mixed feelings about the retention of internment, which is provided for in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Internment has been used in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. It has been used wisely, discreetly and with discrimination.

Mr. McNamara: That is what we were complaining about.

Mr. Maginnis: I thought that that particular word might alert hon. Members.
Internment was used to take out of circulation terrorists who could not be dealt with by means of the civil law.

Innocent people in Northern Ireland are being gunned down by the score, but that is seldom referred to in this Chamber. I shall quote again figures that I have quoted before. In my constituency, 181 members of the community have been gunned down, but only 27 of those murders have been solved, so 154 out of 181 murders remain unsolved. The security forces know who is responsible for many of the killings, but they continue to say to us that the civil law is inadequate to deal with the problem.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: Not now.
My community would like internment to be used as wisely as it was used by the Northern Ireland Government on various occasions over many years. It would not wish internment to be used as it was used in 1971. Although the legislation was enacted by the Northern Ireland Government, internment was not carried by that Government. It was implemented out by the Westminster Government, who have assumed powers over security. Their information was inadequate and internment did considerable harm.
Although I do not always believe him, the Secretary of State tells us that intelligence has improved a hundredfold during the last 17 years. We now have the necessary information to effect a form of internment that would alienate nobody but that would take out of circulation the terrorist godfathers. It would provide an opportunity for those on both sides of the community who want to be rid of the terrorists to make some progress.
It is amazing that when we talk about internment we hear that it, and it almost alone, was the thing that caused the alienation of the minority community. Let us debate in the House another subject that is politically unacceptable and we will hear that it, and it alone, caused the alienation of the minority community. By now I am used to hearing that it was 50 years of Unionist Government that caused the alienation of the minority community. It is so easy for people who want to make that political point to choose anything with which they disagree and say that that was what caused the alienation of the minority community.
I am talking about the alienation of an entire community, a community alienated by terrorism. For 17 years successive Governments have done nothing to quell that terrorism. There has been almost total failure. In fact, there has been what many of us see as something approaching abject surrender to terrorists. Points of view have been put across here suggesting that one might go a little bit easier.
When we are talking about internment, I do not know how we got on to the subject of a funeral. However, as that is a subject to which I can now allude, is there not a great deal of ambivalence in the attitude adopted by Father Faul? I quote Father Faul in so far as I believe that he is a man who genuinely detests terrorism. He is a man who does not want to see the terrorist succeed and who has no desire, as I suspect some people even in the Chamber might have, to ride on the back, or at least to take advantage of, the terrorist as he operates in Northern Ireland at present. Father Faul has suggested that that incident will alienate the minority — let us call it the Roman Catholic —community. If we did not prevent a display of terrorism at the funeral. the majority community and a sizeable


number of the minority community would be disgusted by a display such as we saw a week or two ago when firearms were taken from a church to demonstrate that terrorism held sway in Northern Ireland. Terrorism does hold sway in Northern Ireland, so let us not try to hide that fact, and the Government have proved to be impotent in dealing with it.
Senior policemen to whom I speak suggest—they are talking about a comparative few—that if they could take only eight people out of the east Tyrone area they would have a tremendous advantage in the fight against terrorism. Those policemen are faced with a situation where they come to the courts — it does not matter whether it is Diplock courts or jury trials—and find that the evidence they are able to reveal to the court is inadequate.
That is not the only criticism that I have of the courts, but I do not want to go down that road too far, except to say that it amazed me to find in my constituency quite recently that three men caught with a 6001b car bomb, taking it in to blow apart a town that is predominantly Roman Catholic, were given suspended sentences. They were not lads; they were grown men. I observed that one was probably more likely to get a prison sentence for having 6001b of smuggled butter than a 6001b bomb. However, at least I noticed that the fourth member of the gang was imprisoned for five years. The judge apologised to him and said something to the effect "My dear fellow, you will feel that you are badly done by, but I think it is ridiculous that your fellow bombers got off scot free, so I am going to sentence you to five years"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Maginnis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for digressing.
My point is quite simple. The law is inadequate. It is proven to be inadequate. The 154 unresolved murders, out of a total of 181, in my constituency cry out for some sort of justice. I believe that by taking the known godfathers out of the community by internment we could achieve some degree of success. If the Secretary of State is not to use internment, if he is not to take his courage in his hands and give us what we need to defeat terrorism, let us not deceive the people any longer. Let us get rid of the section. Either make use of it, or get rid of it. It is only an aggravation to those who are opposed to it to have it there, and it is only a frustration to those who want it there if it is not to be used.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) put before us terrible figures of the number of his constituents who have been killed and the small number of cases that have been cleared up. He went on to say that the security forces know who was responsible for the murders and therefore we should have internment because the people involved should be locked up. That is an extremely dangerous argument. I sympathise with the emotion that he must feel about the terrible number of killings, but such an argument rules out the rule of law everwhere. The police will say up and down this country that they know who the bad families are who are doing the burglaries on estates and so on. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. If one goes around locking up individuals who one thinks are

responsible, but one is wrong, one causes enormous bitterness and a sense of injustice that polarises, divides and leads to more violence, more distress and more deaths among the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Although I am sure that we all understand and sympathise with the anger that the hon. Gentleman must feel, I think that the course he suggests of allowing the security forces to lock up those who they think are responsible, without having any evidence to prove that they are responsible, is far too dangerous. If those involved, the godfathers as the hon. Gentleman called them, all known to the security forces, are six in number and are responsible for large numbers of deaths, the security forces would have to be very incompetent if they could not follow them and obtain the evidence to convict them. That leads me to suspect that they might not be correct in their suspicions and that the policy recommended by the hon. Gentleman is very dangerous. However, I note that his conclusion agrees with that of most Opposition Members. He says that if the Government are not to start using internment again, they should not have the power in the Bill. I agree with him on that, as do many of the hon. Members who have spoken.
I shall not repeat the arguments, but my view is similar to that of others who have spoken. I believe that internment was a disaster for Northern Ireland. Many innocent people were interned, which led to enormous anger and bitterness, with the families of those who were interned becoming involved with paramilitary organisations because of the anger that they felt. I saw that process at work on my visits to Northern Ireland at the time. It was a disaster which should not be repeated.
If, in future the Secretary of State thinks that it is necessary to introduce internment, surely he should come before the House and seek those powers. It is such a serious move and change that we should not simply have powers in legislation lying on the table to be picked up whenever the right hon. Gentleman feels like using them. As I read the Bill—I can hardly believe that I am right — the right hon. Gentleman can start doing that tomorrow without any permission from the House of Commons. He could go home tonight and decide that., as he was getting a bit irritated, he would start interning a few people. That is outrageous and extraordinary.
The Government may argue—I do not agree —that internment is a solution that they may have to consider in future. I say seriously to the Secretary of State that, even if he believes that, he should withdraw the powers from the Bill and give us the undertaking that if he ever proposes to introduce internment he will bring a new Bill before the House of Commons and let us debate it, rather than use those powers on his own, without even having a debate in the House.

8 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) suggested that we should have an opportunity to debate a new Bill prior to implementing detention. I humbly suggest to the House that to some extent that is what happened with the tragic use of detention in the 1970s. In other words, instead of using the power correctly and selectively, the Government signalled their intention for weeks, so that the people who should have been lifted had long since gone. There was bungling of other intelligence. As a result, the whole community was flabbergasted and incensed.
The emotional arguments that have been put forward against the principle of selective detention are suspect in themselves. It has been suggested that detention has been used on only one occasion in Northern Ireland and that it had a tremendous impact upon the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who remembers it. Selective detention had been used before then. I believe it was not detention but an accumulation of attacks, which ultimately was a challenge to the state. I believe that that was mishandled for well over a year and that conflagration was bound to come, just as we have seen with the apparently successful settlement of an internecine feud recently. The paramilitaries in Belfast and throughout the Province are now unleashing their forces against the state rather than against one another.
We should at least examine what this is all about. It is easy for an hon. Member in the House to say that the security forces are incapable if they cannot bring the evidence to a court of law, which would bring conviction. Even in the normal process of justice, when we sit in a court, we are never terribly sure who is the accused—whether it is the person bringing the charge or the person in the dock—because we bend over backwards to put the weight of evidence in favour of the accused. The only legislation that has been introduced to the opposite effect has been the most recent Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which places some responsibility upon the accused to prove his innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt.
In dealing with hardened terrorism, when we start the normal process of British justice and give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, it is extremely difficult to be sure that there is cast-iron evidence that will stand up—whether it is forensic, collaborative evidence or accomplice participation. All such evidence, at whatever level, can be suspect.
I recognise that there are divided opinions in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was one of the first to speak against detention, and there are others who are not in favour of detention. Frankly, I still believe that selective detention is a weapon in the armoury of any democratic state, which it cannot willingly throw away without deep consideration.
I call in my support not, I suspect, a biased Unionist, not even anybody with suspicious religious convictions, but the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the former Prime Minister of the Irish Repulic, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who have both said in my presence that no democratic state should throw away the armoury of selective detention. It may he debatable whether it should be used in certain circumstances or in a particular case. It had been suggested in the debate that we should take it away from our legislation and that if we want to use it on another occasion we should have a debate in the rational atmosphere of the House of Commons while the terrorists, who should be moved on quickly, continue to do their dirty business or get offside so that they cannot be apprehended. That is the height of lunacy. While I can sympathise with some aspects of the arguments in the debate, I believe that it would be folly to remove the provision from the statute.

Mr. David Winnick: I disagree strongly with the arguments that have been put forward

today by the representatives of the Unionist party. It is a good sign that they have come back to the House, and I welcome that, but internment in itself would be wrong on the grounds of civil liberties. Of that there is no doubt at all. That is not to deny for one moment the sheer evil of a sustained terrorist compaign. As we know, most of that terrorism comes from the Provisional IRA and sister organisations on that side of the sectarian divide, but there is terrorism on the other side, which I am sure hon. Members will not wish to deny.
To a large extent, the debate is like last week's debate on capital punishment. I did not speak in that debate, but I strongly took the point that to bring back capital punishment for terrorists would play directly into their hands. No matter what the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein may say publicly about opposing capital punishment, we all know instinctively that they would like that. They would like it for all the reasons that were deployed in the debate last week.
Surely the same, to a large extent, applies to internment. Again, it would be a powerful propaganda weapon for the Provisional IRA. It would be able to show that people had been taken in and locked up and not convicted of any offence, because, in essence, that is what it is all about. They would be placed in confinement, not because of proceedings in court, but because they had been suspected of various offences. That goes against the grain of what we believe to be the rule of law.
Not only is the Provisional IRA affected. I am very pleased about the fact that when Provisional Sinn Fein stood for the first time in elections in the Irish Republic it received less than 2 per cent. of the vote. As I have said on several occasions, that somewhat undermines Sinn Fein's claim to speak in the name of 1798 and 1916.
If internment took place once again, if a feeling grew in the Republic that people were being locked up without just cause, it would be argued that that was the case not because they were terrorists, but because they happened to take a nationalist point of view. I wonder whether the vote for Provisional Sinn Fein would increase in such circumstances. What would be the effect in other places abroad, such as America, where there is anti-British feeling —and I believe that I am right to describe it as such—over Northern Ireland? What would be the effect among people who are not willing to consider the facts or to recognise that terrorism is precisely terrorism? Would we not be playing into their hands? That would be a shortsighted move and would be counter-productive. It could only play directly into the hands of the terrorists.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the Secretary of State should not have his powers over internment. If such a circumstance were to arise, the Secretary of State should have to come to the House and argue his case accordingly. For those reasons, I strongly disagree with the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Before I respond to the points in the debate, may I state that I regard it as a privilege to be able to join in the proceedings. I read with great interest the reports of the debates that took place in Committee. As an observer I must state how much I respected the constructive approach taken throughout the discussions in Committee.
I hope that those hon. Members who served on the Committee feel that the Government have in a significant number of areas sought to respond to those discussions. We will shortly come to a number of Government amendments that have been tabled in direct response to points made in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will feel that that is a proper response.
I have also had the opportunity to read the debate that took place in Committee about this new clause. An amendment was tabled in Committee on this subject, but was not voted upon. I understand why my hon. Friend the Minister for State and others believed that this matter should be brought to the Floor of the House for a fuller discussion. I welcome the fact that the House has had the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument and to consider the difficult issue of how to deal with terrorism and fight and combat it as effectively as we can under the rule of law. It is right that we should consider the place that this provision might or might not have in that context.
Arguments have been raised about the merits of introducing detention. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was the only hon. Member to advocate the introduction of selective detention. He made it clear that he would prefer to see it introduced now, but if it was not to be introduced he said it was more honest and straightforward to abandon the power and seek a fresh authority if we decided to change the policy. I recognise that others did not argue the case for detention. Indeed there were strong criticisms of it. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made his concerns clear—as he did in Committee—about the damage that he believes is caused by the existence of the provision and the extra propaganda weapon that it gives to those who seek to attract support to their cause and who try to maintain alienation and not to work for reconciliation.
8.15 pm
As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, this is a question not whether we should have detention now, but whether the power should remain on the statute book to be exercised in a particular circumstance. All the points that I could have made have been eloquently made already in the debate. There is considerable force in the comments made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone about the different situation that presently exists. It is fair to point out that the previous introduction of internment was made under the Northern Ireland Government in 1971. We inherited it through the introduction of direct rule and it continued to operate under new arrangements. Clearly there were great problems and a new situation now exists. Intelligence is now very much better and in certain circumstances many among the security forces would argue that there is a possibility that the provision could be operated in a very different way.
However, it would be difficult to defend the position from arguments that the misrepresentation and the propaganda weapon that the provision would provide and the apparent abandonment of the normal conventions of the rule of law would be valuable ammunition—I use that term in the metaphorical sense—to the terrorists to allow them to argue the case that they were not living in a just society, and that they were entitled to the support of others in their fight for fairness and justice. This is a difficult matter to make a judgment upon.
It is appropriate that I should reply to the new clause. It is the responsibility of the holder of my office to think very carefully before reaching a balanced decision about whether it would be right to surrender the emergency reserve provision. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev Martin Smyth) used that phrase. I have not heard it, as he said he has directly from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) or from the former Taoiseach. The hon. Gentleman said that no responsible Government could lose from its range of possible measures possible recourse to such a power. I am aware that the power exists in the Republic and I have heard similar comments elsewhere.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State explain why it does not apply on the mainland of the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question would lead me to a much wider discussion if I had to recount the distinctions and differences in that matter. The fact is that the position is different. In some ways, that is perhaps the understatement of the evening. There is obviously a difference in the level of problems that we face in Northern Ireland with regard to terrorism.

Mr. Mallon: Is it fair to quote the opinions of two political leaders in Ireland that are not on record as far as I know? Is it fair for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to quote an opinion which is not on record and for the Secretary of State to take up and use such an opinion? As I understood it, from the way in which the point was made in the House, those opinions may have been voiced as private opinions in private conversations.

Mr. King: I am trying to respond to the debate and to the points that have been made. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I said that I had not heard the hon. Member for Foyle and the former Taoiseach use that phrase. But I understand the argument and have heard it elsewhere.
The question is whether we can ignore the unforeseeable. I recognise Sir George Baker's forceful recommendation that the powers should be removed, but chapter 6 of the report, on the detention of terrorists, says this:
The question is whether to repeal these provisions. This appreciation was written before the Darkley chapel killings on 20 November 1983 and the Harrods' bomb explosion. I have reviewed my conclusions having regard to the universal condemnation and loathing since expressed. I have altered nothing.
Sir George Baker reviewed his recommendation against those events to see whether it still stood. Interestingly, he accepted implicitly that, because of those events, he should go back to see whether it was necessary to reconsider his recommendation, which had not been published at the time of those events. He believed that the events did not justify his changing those views.
The question that I put to the House is this. Could it become necessary to reconsider the position if there was a sudden deterioration in security or if a serious problem arose in the ability of the courts to deal with terrorist crimes that might necessitate emergency action for which the alternatives were all unpalatable or full of difficulties? I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee: there is no prospect of the powers being brought hack into force. But there is always the possibility of a sudden deterioration in the position. I should tell the


hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that it is not an untrammelled power or one that I could exercise without reference to the House. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that speed and surprise are important elements if the power is to be effective, but there is no question of my exercising it without reference to the House. For it to be effective, it would have to be confirmed by the House.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has given that welcome assurance. Sir George Baker said in conclusion at paragraph 236:
If 'doomsday' arrives in whatever form it will be the duty of the then Government to bring any necessary legislation before Parliament immediately.
He went on to say that, after the Birmingham bombing, that was precisely what the Government did. Given that the powers could be exercised rapidly, why does not the Secretary of State accept the Opposition's arguments?

Mr. King: The power exists, but there is no proposal to reintroduce it. As Sir George Baker said, detention is phased out in fact but kept available in law. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that a problem could arise while the House was in recess. We must consider whether, in all the circumstances, we can be sure of being able to act promptly. We must then assess whether this reserve power, with all the problems that it created and all the background history, is none the less the least worse approach to an as now unforeseen problem which no Government could stand idly by and fail to tackle.

Mr. Archer: The Secretary of State has puzzled some of us. A few moments ago, he assured us that he could not activate the power without reference to the House.

Mr. King: I said that it would have to be confirmed by the House.

Mr. Archer: I am still not wholly clear. Does the Secretary of State mean that he might activate the power without reference to the House and act under it before the House had an opportunity to consider it? That is the problem about which some of my hon. Friends were worried. But if he says that he needs the power in case the House is in recess, it negates the argument.

Mr. King: I could act under an order, which could come into effect immediately, but it would be subject to affirmative resolution of the House.
This must be a matter of judgment. I am also conscious that it is a matter of perception. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the attitude of the security forces. I consulted them to discover the perception that would exist. If the power was removed, even though it is not used and is held in reserve, people might think that Parliament was not even prepared to treat it as an ultimate fallback. We have heard lucid accounts which represent fairly the feelings of many people, especially in the border areas, but in other parts of the Province too, as well as the challenges, dangers and tragedies to which they have been exposed. If we accepted the new clause, those people might perceive that the Government and Parliament were not prepared, in an emergency, to make available that weapon in the armoury of the state in this respect.
On balance, I reach the judgment that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said to the Committee, I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 168.

Divison No. 141]
[8.28 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Alton, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beith, A. J.
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bermingham, Gerald
McWilliam, John


Boyes, Roland
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Mallon, Seamus


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marek, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
O'Neill, Martin


Corbett, Robin
Park, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Dr John
Raynsford, Nick


Dalyell, Tam
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Dewar, Donald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, Jack
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Wainwright, R.


Garrett, W. E.
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wareing, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Welsh, Michael


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hoyle, Douglas



Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hume, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Janner, Hon Greville





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope,John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brinton, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gower, Sir Raymond
Powley, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raffan, Keith


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Harvey, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hicks, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Hind, Kenneth
Ryder, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holt, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Scott, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Silvester, Fred


Latham, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spencer, Derek


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Temple-Morris, Peter


McQuarrie, Albert
Terlezki, Stefan


Madel, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Major, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maples, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marlow, Antony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mather, Sir Carol
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walden, George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Ward, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Watson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watts, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wheeler, John


Moate, Roger
Whitfield, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Norris, Steven
Winterton, Nicholas


Onslow. Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Page, Richard (Herts SW)



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Francis Maude.


Powell, William (Corby)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

SEARCHES OF PERSONS

`In section 15(3)(a) of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted after "person", the words "whom he reasonably suspects of having with him unlawfully, munitions in any public place, or having with him any transmitter"; after "he has any", the word "such"; and after "him or any", the word "such".'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this and the ensuing new clauses we come to the whole troubled area of the powers vested in the members

of the security forces to stop people and to search them. Of necessity, they are powers to stop people who may well transpire to be blameless, respectable citizens going about their lawful business, and who may well be in a hurry for legitimate reasons. The Opposition accept that in the conditions that exist in Northern Ireland some such powers are essential and that their existence imposes some restraint on the men of violence and may lead to their detention and arrest. However, those powers are fraught with possibilities of trouble. Even if everyone concerned is patient, courteous and sensitive, there is a potential confrontation which, by reason of its purpose, is impregnated with suspicion. There is suspicion of the person who is stopped and searched, because without that suspicion there would be little purpose in stopping and searching him. The person stopped is suspicious that the power is being exercised, not for its real purpose, but for that of arrest.
It is all highly susceptible to misunderstanding, and that is true even if everyone is on his best behaviour. Given that we are talking about human beings who, like you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are sometimes irritable, who sometimes get out of the wrong side of the bed, and who sometimes carry with them a memory of some former bad experience, it is virtually inevitable that there will sometimes be irritation on both sides.
It is not surprising if the powers are sometimes used to pay off old scores, to give vent to discriminatory prejudice, or to flaunt a position of advantage. Even when that is not the case, it is not surprising if sometimes the powers are perceived in that way. We heard examples in Committee of how such powers are sometimes abused, and sometimes seen to be abused. Therefore, it is vital that the relationship between the various powers in the Bill is clearly understood and kept in mind throughout the episode. Of course, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) reminded us, the person who has suffered inconvenience and delay, who may have been at the receiving end of insults, and who may have been made to remove his shoes and jacket, may not feel any great academic interest in the subsection that is applicable to that specific stage of the episode. It is vital that all members of the armed forces should not attempt to exercise powers that Parliament has not given to them.
Sir George Baker gave us many examples of powers that have apparently been abused or, at best, used pointlessly. As we were reminded in an earlier debate today, the members of the security forces are fallible, but we impose heavy burdens on them and require them to expose themselves to great danger. They have to make instant judgments and sometimes, if they are wrong, the penalty can be high. If, to all that, one adds the fact that they, too, may be browned off, exasperated or irritable, we must seek a delicate balance between insisting on high standards and occasionally making allowances. I say that about this group of new clauses.
New clause 10 is the first to raise such questions. It relates to the power in section 15(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 to stop a person in any public place and to search him for unlawful munitions or a transmitter, with a view to exercising the powers conferred by subsection (4). The only limit that is imposed is on the power to seize unlawful munitions or a transmitter. There is no limit on the power to stop and search someone for that purpose. The person need not


have behaved suspiciously. A person may be stopped for no reason at all. The purpose of the new clause is to limit the power to circumstances of reasonable suspicion.
I understand the value of having a power to stop and search at random. If the only test to be applied were whether that was of advantage to the security forces, clearly that is an advantage. However, when against that there has to be set the aggravation to innocent people, the opportunity for harassment, the occasions for misunderstanding, and the loss of public confidence in and support for the security forces, a balance must be struck.
I hope that I am being fair in saying that what I think emerged in Committee was that a distinction seems to be drawn between stopping and searching vehicles and stopping and searching people. I think that a consensus emerged that there can be no real complaint about the random search of vehicles under other powers, provided that it is conducted without discrimination and with sensitivity. However, with persons who are not in vehicles, or even when they are in vehicles, if nothing suspicious is found in the vehicle itself, I think the consensus was that the balance should be the other way. I shall not elaborate on the reasons at this hour, but say only that this new clause would give effect to that consensus, if I have got it right.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a rum clause. I have read section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 more times than I have found enjoyable and I find it more difficult every time I read it. Evidently my difficulties are shared by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) who drafted what is not the most elegant of the new clauses that have been placed before the House. However, it is a consolation to me that we are the first House to consider this Bill. Perhaps the words that are shed during this debate may bear fruit in another place among Lords who are learned in the law.
I shall explain some of the curious features about this new clause in case something can be done about it later, because it is indeed awkward and rum. I begin with the observation made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West on section 15(3) of the 1978 Act which quaintly states:
Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty or any constable may—(a) stop any person in any public place".
That is absolutely unqualified. It gives unqualified power to any member of the forces on duty or any constable to stop anybody. However, the matter ends there. A member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable can stop a person, can go on stopping him or, presumably stop him again and start him again. He cannot do anything but stop him. There is no qualification of the stopping power, and that is curious—at any rate in the context of the rest of the section.
The curious thing about this section is the mounting excitement with which one approaches subsection (4). In subsection (1) there is a power to enter any premises, other than a dwelling house, and to search it, but only
with a view to exercising the powers conferred by subsection (4) below.
Therefore, we wait to find out the powers that are conferred by "subsection (4) below." Then we come to subsection (2) which states that any member of Her

Majesty's forces may enter, if authorised, any dwelling house in which certain things are suspected but, however strong his suspicion may do that only
with a view to exercising the said powers.
Holding our breath, we continue. We already have powers to enter premises other than dwelling houses and to enter a dwelling house. Subsection (3) is prefaced by the words:
Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty or any constable …
may not only stop that person—that is an unqualified power on which I have already descanted —but can search him, but only
with a view to exercising the said powers.
The excitement is now at fewer pitch. The subsection continues by stating that the purpose of searching him is to ascertain
whether he has any munitions … or any transmitter with him.
Then, under subsection (3)(b) that member of Her Majesty's forces or constable can do something else, with a view to exercising the said powers. Again, he can search a person
not in a public place
—in fact, he can search him in a private place, but he must do that
with a view to exercising the said powers.
At last, having cleared subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 15 of the principal Act, we come to the answer to all our expectations, in subsection (4). What is the purpose of exercising the powers in subsection (4)? It is to seize any munitions found in the course of the search—unless it appears that they are being used for a lawful purpose—and, if necessary, to destroy them. Therefore, provided one intends conscientiously to seize and destroy munitions, one can do all the other things that are set out in the subsection.
But who can do that? I return for the umpteenth time to a study of subsection (4) which states that it is a member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable who is authorised to search any premises or other place or any person under the Act. I am told that they get that authorisation either under subsection (2), which refers to subsection (4), or in subsection (4) itself. Therefore, a person is authorised to do these things in subsection (4) provided that he is doing them for the purposes of subsection (4). This is the rummest of all pieces of drafting.
I am sure that the new clause has its value, even if it will not be accepted exactly as it stands, as I suspect it will not be, amidst such a cloud of difficulties. I hope that it will be taken by the Government as a signal that the parliamentary draftsman needs to take away this subsection from the principal Act, to make decent, logical, progressive sense of it, and not leave it in its present tumultuous position.

Mr. Scott: The power that is conferred on the RUC and members of the armed forces to stop any person in a public place and search him is wholly exceptional. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in his canter through the logical or illogical order in which the various powers are set out in section 15, but after the debate I shall study carefully what he has had to say. These powers are exceptional, which is why they are in the emergency provisions legislation with all the other exceptional provisions; why they are all kept under constant review; and why, if the Bill passes into law, they will have a maximum life of five years.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will simply recall that we amended section 15(4) in Committee to get rid of the particular difficulty about authorisation. That may meet one scintilla of his case. The House knows why these powers are necessary. Serious terrorist threats exist in Northern Ireland and the power to stop and search people is an important element of prevention and deterrence. It makes the terrorist aware that if he moves illicit material around, either on his person or in a vehicle, he is liable to be stopped and searched. If the new clause is accepted, it will weaken the ability of the security forces to deter and prevent such activity. It will remove what has been a serious constraint on the ability of terrorists to make preparations for terrorist attacks, whether by carrying firearms or explosives. That, in essence, is my case.
I know that difficulties arise, and I would be the last person to claim that the power has never been used unreasonably. I am sure that occasionally it has been abused. But the House knows that my ministerial colleagues and I are always ready to investigate genuine grievances. The fact that the security forces have this power is a considerable reassurance to the majority of people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland who do not resent being stopped. Many of these stops are over in a matter of seconds—a minute or two at most — before those searched go on their way. I would equate it with the power to stop and search passengers before they board an aircraft flight. It is a measure of reassurance that others are being subjected to the same treatment and that everyone is in a greater state of safety as a result. It would not be right to remove that power from the security forces.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that there should be a power to stop, but not to search? That is the point that is raised by new clause 10. At present, on any ordinary construction of section 15(3), that is exactly the law. There is a power to stop without searching.

Mr. Scott: It may well be that the sole purpose of stopping someone would be to establish his identity—to do what in common parlance in Northern Ireland is called a "P-check" — and let him go on his way without proceeding to search him. Under other powers, having searched and found something, the person may be arrested. There is a logical progression. Certainly there should be a power to stop people and establish their identity. This power has an important deterrent effect on the activities of terrorists, so I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Had the Minister not sat down I would have referred him to section 18 of the 1978 Act, which states that a constable may stop and question any person for various purposes. Surely the Minister is not seriously saying that there should be a power per se to stop, unless the stopping is for the purpose of either questioning or searching.

Mr. Scott: In practice, the powers under section 15 would be used to search and those under section 18 to stop and question. That is absolutely fair. I told the right hon. Gentleman that we would consider the drafting, if that was the point at issue. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was questioning generally whether there should be a power simply to stop.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 12

POWER TO STOP AND QUESTION

`In section 18(2) of the 1978 Act the words "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or", and the words ", or both" shall be deleted.'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.

Mr. Archer: I am sorry that the literary style of new clause 10 did not meet with the approval of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and I hope that he finds new clause 12 more pleasing.
We continue to deal with the problems arising from the power to stop people and to do various other things to them, such as question or search them. Section 18 of the principal Act enables the forces to stop and question someone. Already we have found ourselves once again in difficulties about how these various powers fit together.
In Committee we observed that the obligation on a member of the public to answer questions put to him by members of the forces was a serious inroad into the right of silence which is a much vaunted feature of our constitution. We did not seek to remove the obligation, but we observed that the penalty for refusing to answer, which runs to a maximum of six months' imprisonment, seemed to be draconian. The new clause seeks to remove that penalty, leaving the alternative penalty of a fine of up to £ 400.
I note that in amendment No. 29 the Government have given us all that we asked for and more. I welcome the prospect of the Minister speaking to the amendment, so I shall not delay the House further.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be churlish of me not to respond to the almost pathetic appeal which was addressed to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him : I prefer Government amendment No. 29 to his new clause.

9 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has acknowledged, Government amendment No. 29 seeks to achieve the same effect as new clause 12. It makes two changes to section 18 of the 1978 Act, both of which arise from discussion in Committee. The first resolves the drafting point which was raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and makes it clear that the power to stop and question persons includes the power to ask what they know about any recent explosions and other recent incidents which have endangered life.
The second part of the amendment abolishes the penalty of imprisonment for the offence of failing to stop or refusing to answer questions. In Committee the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) raised this matter, and on consideration the Government agree that the penalty of imprisonment is disproportionate to the offence.
I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West moved his new clause, but, in


the event that he did and that he now withdraws it, I should be happy formally to move amendment No. 29 at the end of this brief debate.

Mr. Archer: For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that it was not my intention to move the new clause.

Dr. Mawhinney: In that case, I move Government amendment No. 29——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Chair must deem that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) moved his new clause. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to withdraw his new clause?

Mr. Archer: Having got myself into a procedural difficulty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will be called in due course formally to move Government amendment No. 29.

New Clause 13

POWERS OF ARREST BY MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES

`The following section shall be inserted after section 14(1) of the 1978 Act—
(1A) No cause of action shall lie against a member of Her Majesty's forces below the rank of sergeant by reason only of the arrests without warrant of any person in circumstances where the arrest was carried out on the orders of a member of Her Majesty's forces of superior rank. It is hereby declared that in such circumstances, the member of superior rank shall be held responsible as if he had himself made the arrest.".'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In this debate we continue to grapple with the problems that arise from the various powers to stop and search, their proper construction, the conditions to which they are subject and their relationship to one another.
In paragraph 384, when discussing section 18, Sir George Baker related some of the problems of construction which arise, and he commented :
Why should a soldier know what he can do if a lawyer does not?
He was appealing for the powers to be clarified. That appeal was echoed by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). Sir George Baker claimed that they should be clarified in the interests of those who must operate them.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) commented that the power should be in a form which enabled instructions to be given to soldiers simply and clearly. They have neither the training nor the time to engage in academic speculation about problems of construction.
Reflecting on that, after the Committee stage, it struck the Opposition that a member of the armed forces of whatever rank, including a recently enlisted private, would be personally liable in civil proceedings for any restraint that he might place on a member of the public if it transpired that that restraint was not authorised by some statutory power. That would be the case even if he were acting on orders, if those orders were not authorised.
It may be said that that is a traditional way of dealing with such situations in the United Kingdom. Anyone who purports to act in pursuance of a power is personally answerable if that power does not exist. If we were dealing with a criminal offence, I would not seek to argue otherwise; but where we are concerned with actions for damages, the victim probably would not be troubled who paid the damages provided they were paid. It seems hard that a junior member of the forces, acting on orders, should be personally liable to an order for damages. It would impose a heavy obligation on a private to say that he should have recognised that the instructions that he received from a major were unlawful and that he should have refused to carry them out. I do not think that that would be realistic and I am not sure that it would be in the interests of good discipline if he were encouraged to speculate on such matters.
Any superior officer who gives an order which he is not authorised to give would be responsible to the victim since he would have made his subordinate his agent for that purpose. For the avoidance of doubt, we have sought in the new clause to declare that that should be the effect. The victim will not lose his remedy and justice will be done. The unfortunate individual at the receiving end of the unlawful order will be protected. That is the purpose of the new clause.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I found the new clause a most fascinating one to study, partly because the rank of sergeant seems to be the only one between private and brigadier that I did not occupy during the late hostilities. It is inherently strange that one should stop at the rank of sergeant in this business of transferring upwards through the ranks whatever liability is caught by the new clause. The distinction between a private and a lance corporal is one of the biggest chasms in the class systems which it is possible to cross, ought at least to have been recognised, if only in passing, by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
There is another difficulty. When the ball comes to rest with the sergeant, it is the member of superior rank who is to be held responsible. But what if it was a staff sergeant or a company sergeant major or a regimental sergeant major who gave the order? Will that be satisfactory? I noticed that a commissioned officer seemed to be in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind.
I am not sure whether the clause, in its present form, whatever might be the excellence of its intentions, is either fair in itself or likely to achieve its object. I imagine that in that respect I am at one with the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Scott: If the main object here is to protect the position of any victim of an action to ensure that proper recompense can be made, I can set at rest the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) by saying that, if any civil action were taken, the Ministry of Defence would be vicariously liable, not officers of non-commissioned or commissioned rank. I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman and that there will be no need for him to pursue the new clause.

Mr. Archer: I am not sure that I am wholly convinced but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

EXERCISE OF ARREST POWERS

`The following section shall be inserted after section 20(8) of the 1978 Act—
(8A) No detention or arrest without warrant of a person which is incidental to the exercise of a power contained in this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be authorised unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances, and does not exceed a period of four hours.".'.—[Mr. Archer]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I looked somewhat surprised because I was not expecting to have to move this new clause, but it seems that I am left holding whatever baby is enshrined in it. Not only can I speak briefly; I have to.
In Committee, a discussion arose about what we might call incidental powers to detain people when, for example, in the course of the search of premises they sought to interfere wth the search, or it became necessary in some way to restrain them in order that the search could proceed, or when exercising any of the other powers in the principal Act it became necessary as an incident to the exercise of those powers to restrain someone.
My recollection is that the Minister of State, helpfully setting out the position as he understood it, said that one does not need to spell out all those powers specifically because they are incidental to the exercise of the powers which are given and therefore they are implied. Someone —it may have been the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—asked whether that was a rather dangerous way to proceed and whether it would be better to spell out the powers so that we would know precisely what their limits were and the conditions to which they were subject.
The purpose of this new clause is to meet that problem. It may not be all that specific, but it is intended to say that powers which are exercised as being incidental to other powers set out in the principal Act shall be exercised reasonably.

Mr. Scott: There are two elements in the new clause. The first concerns the incidental powers, and the second concerns the time limits themselves. My concern on time limits is that the proposed new clause could turn out to be counter-productive in that the time limit which it spells out might easily become the norm. I am legally advised that the rest of the new clause is unnecessary because any incidental power to detain a person while he, his home or vehicle is searched, or while he is answering questions put to him under section 18, is already constrained by the requirement that it should be reasonable in all circumstances. Therefore, the new clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Archer: Again, I am not sure whether I have wholly taken in the Minister's argument or whether I wholly concur with it. I believe that it is a matter to which we should all give much more careful consideration than seems possible at this stage. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Cause 1

LIMITATION OF POWER TO GRANT BAIL IN CASE OF SCHEULED OFFENCES

Mr. Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after (1)', insert
`Subject to subsection (6) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 33, at end insert
',or
(c) who was a serving member of any of Her Majesty's forces, or a serving member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and on duty, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.'.
Government amendment No. 6.

Mr. Scott: In Committee some concerns were expressed about the position of serving members of the security forces under section 2. In giving effect to Sir George Baker's recommendation that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve should be put on the same footing as serving members of Her Majesty's forces, the Government's intention — as I told the Committee—was that a magistrate should be able to bail serving members of the security forces into military or police custody as appropriate. The option of bail into military or police custody would be available only where the scheduled offence was alleged to have been committed in connection with the duties of the soldier or policeman.
Some hon. Members — notably the right hon. and learned Member for Warley West (Mr. Archer), the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) -pointed out that the clause as drafted goes further than this: it would except, in its present form, serving members of the security forces altogether from the scope of section 2. This has, of course, been the position in regard to serving soldiers since the bail restrictions were first introduced in 1973, and I am not aware that this has caused any difficulties in practice. However, the Government accept that the clause needs tightening up. These amendments therefore provide that a magistrate may grant bail to a serving member of the security forces only if he is satisfied that the person concerned can be held in military or police custody, and the magistrate must impose a condition that he is to be held in such custody. If military custody were not available, or the policeman or soldier wanted to apply to be released from all custody on bail, he would be subject to the same restrictions concerning bail as any other person charged with a scheduled offence.

Mr. John McWilliam: I welcome Government amendment No. 1 without reservation. However, the Minister will recall that in Committee we were concerned about the clear distinction between the treatment of a member of the security forces or a soldier who was on duty, and one who was not. I think that I prefer the wording in amendment No. 5 to the wording in Government amendment No. 6, but I shall not pursue that. I shall not move amendment No. 5, and I accept the other amendments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At an earlier stage in our proceedings the Minister seemed somewhat aggrieved that


his efforts to meet points made in Committee were not receiving the recognition that they deserved. I hope that we shall now be able to glut the Minister with good things. I recognise that Government amendment No. 6 fully spells out, as it should be spelt out on the face of a statute, the intentions as they were explained by the Minister to the Committee on that occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'may, in his discretion,' and insert `shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 2A.

Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
`(3) In exercising his discretion the judge shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence charged;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant;
(c) the nature of the evidence;
(d) the time spent or likely to be spent in custody if bail is refused.'.

Mr. Archer: In Committee we explored with some thoroughness clause 1 and debated it at some length again earlier this evening. It is the clause relating to bail. Widespread concern was expressed today, as it was in Committee, that people who had not been convicted of any offence might be detained in custody, awaiting trial, for what could be the equivalent of a substantial custodial sentence.
I do not propose to detail all the matters that were explored in Committee and in the earlier debate, but two things in particular exercised some of us. In paragraph 81 Sir George Baker recommended that the judge, in considering whether to grant bail, should be declared to have a wide discretion and should be given guidelines about the matters that he may take into account. That was the purpose of our amendment No. 3. It is reflected, and perhaps more brilliantly reflected, in Government amendment No. 2A. We are grateful to the Government for responding to what we said and I do not seek to take that matter any further.
9.15 pm
The other matter that concerned us was the imbalance between the granting and the refusing of bail. Clause 1 provides that if certain matters are established the court must refuse bail, but that if they are not established it may grant bail. That seemed strange to us, because we had assumed that matters that the Government regarded as obstacles to bail would be listed in the clause. If none of them is established, it is not easy to understand why bail should not be granted.
If it is said that the judge should have a residual discretion, it is not clear why he should not have a discretion both ways. We were prepared to consider resolving the asymmetry by providing that in either event the judge should have a discretion. However, we discovered that there was a procedural problem about the amendment, because it would make nonsense of the clause. It would have said that the clause provided that the judge should have a discretion whether or not any of the listed objections were established. We moved the

amendment to remove the discretion in either case so that the House could have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
Having explained that, I would respond sympathetically if the Government were to say that they will redraft the Bill to resolve the asymmetry by providing that there should be a discretion both ways, rather than only one way. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that were ventilated in Committee. I think that I have explained the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Scott: On reflection, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) feels that Government amendment No 2A fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee and is an important step forward. What we have sought to do is to introduce into the clause a list of the considerations to which the judge, in exercising his discretion about bail, can direct his attention. I shall come to the point of the Opposition amendment in a moment.
I should make it clear that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, but I got the feeling in Committee that hon. Members would welcome matters being spelt out at somewhat greater length. Of course, the judge can take into account other factors that are not included in the Government amendment, so we are not limiting or indeed extending the judge's existing total discretion in these matters. Having reflected on this matter, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to make the grant of bail mandatory if none of the conditions in the new section 2(2) applies. The point here is that we feel that our emergency legislation should interfere as little as possible with the operations of the ordinary law in Northern Ireland.
I am afraid that there is a pressing security-related need for special restrictions to apply to the grant of bail in scheduled cases in Northern Ireland. Where those restrictions do not apply, the ordinary law of bail, which in Northern Ireland is common law, should continue to operate. It is that common law that gives the judge unfettered discretion. If he had to grant bail where none of the stated conditions applied it would, in theory, be because the judge has been forced to grant bail to a person accused of a scheduled offence in circumstances where a magistrate might well have decided to refuse bail to someone accused of a non-scheduled offence.
Therefore, the Government's view is that it is right not to use the emergency law to interfere with the operation of the ordinary law on the granting of bail in Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will agree that the incorporation of considerations on the lines proposed in the amendment is an honest attempt to meet the concern that was expressed on this point in Committee.

Mr. Archer: That is what the Minister said in Committee. I do not find it any more persuasive now than I did when he said it in Committee, but I am conscious of the fact that the Government obviously addressed their mind to our arguments on this whole matter. They have responded admirably to one of our arguments and it would be churlish of me to proceed with the other one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 2A, in page 2, line 13, at end insert —


'(2a) In exercising his descretion in accordance with subsection (2) above in relation to a person, a judge shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to him to be relevant, namely—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence with which the person is charged.
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the person,
(c) the time which the person has already spent in custody and the time which he is likely to spend in custody if he is not admitted to bail, and
(d) the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence,
as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'fourteen' to end of line 27.

No. 6, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
'(6) Subsection (1) above shall not preclude a resident magistrate from admitting to bail a person to whom this section applies if—

(a) the person is a serving member of any of Her Majesty's forces or a serving member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and
(b) the resident magistrate is satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for the person to be held in military or (as the case may be) police custody, and imposes a condition on admitting him to bail that he is to be held in such custody.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
'(3) Where in any such proceedings the prosecution proposes to give, or (as the case may be) has given, in evidence a statement made by the accused, and it appears to the court that, having regard to the circumstances in which the statement was obtained, its admission in evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it, then the court shall do one of the things mentioned in subsection (2)(i) to (iii) above.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
'(12) Where a court finds that the powers conferred by subsections (7) and (10) above have been exercised unreasonably, any statement by the accused obtained in the absence of a solicitor shall be deemed inadmissible in evidence.'.

Mr. Archer: I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) whether he would speak to these amendments. He kindly said that he would, but we then discovered a procedural difficulty because the amendments were not tabled in his name. May I deal with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by moving the amendments formally and leaving my hon. Friend to ventilate the arguments about them?

Mr. Winnick: No one underestimates the difficulties that one faces when dealing with matters of justice in Northern Ireland. Much of what we have debated this evening arises from the situation in the Province. Undoubtedly the terrorist campaign is a factor that affects those who are charged with various offences. However, that makes it all the more important that justice is seen to he done in Northern Ireland. Surely it is only in the interests of the terrorists, from whichever side of the sectarian divide they may come, to be able effectively to question the way in which the courts and justice in general operate there. If the terrorists discern doubts in the minds of those who are not in their ranks, that is clearly a victory for them.
The purpose of the amendments is to eliminate the possibility of unfair convictions as a result of improperly obtained confessions. Our argument is based to a large extent on section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In Committee, the Solicitor-General referred to the circumstances of Northern Ireland when dealing with this aspect of the 1984 Act. He said:
it should be open to a court to admit a confession statement notwithstanding that there is a taint, a hint, the merest vestige of unfairness to the accused or a hint, a taint, the merest vestige of a fact that it would be otherwise adverse to the interests of justice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 January 1987; c. 93.]
We can hardly be happy with that interpretation of such an important matter. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in Committee, the Solicitor-General was making a startling proposition. I am not a lawyer, but I certainly believe in the rule of law. The view that was expressed by the Solicitor-General did not strike much confidence in me. I do not know what it would lead to for people in Northern Ireland. What the Solicitor-General's remarks come down to is this: "Well, it does not really matter at the end of the day, in view of the circumstances in the Province, if there is a wee bit of unfairness towards the accused, or of it is adverse to the interests of justice in some other way. Let it pass." We strongly disagree with that point of view.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred on numerous occasions to the importance of the rule of law. Even faced with a sustained terrorist campaign, the rule of law should apply in Northern Ireland. That is why we believe that the amendments are necessary.
I return to the main point of the amendment—that having regard to the circumstances in which the statement was obtained its admission in evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings
that we believe that the court should not admit it. If it is clear that the accused's statement was obtained by means that would not be allowed in court on the mainland. it should not be allowed by a court in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 24, which calls for the presence of a solicitor when a prisoner is questioned by the police, is self-explanatory.
These amendments are necessary. Terrorists should not be able to argue that they cannot rely on the courts and justice in the Province. It should not be thought in the Irish Republic or in any other country that circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that we have abandoned the rule of law. If certain provisions as laid down in the 1984 Act should apply in the United Kingdom, they should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Solicitor- General placed great emphasis on the word "may". It is up to the courts to decide. We know how courts, in the main, decide in Britain. The position should be the same in Northern Ireland.
For those reasons, I believe that the amendments should be supported.

Mr. Scott: I find it difficult to disagree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which makes it all the sadder that I have to advise the House to reject both amendments.
Amendment No. 9 would remove from judges in Northern Ireland the discretion which Sir George Baker found that they were in practice exercising fairly to exclude confession evidence in the interests of fairness. It would make the exclusion or disregarding of evidence or the


ordering of a new trial mandatory, not discretionary, where the courts find that it would be unfair to admit it. This is not a matter in which a mandatory provision such as this would be appropriate, because it must be for the courts, in considering the whole position, to decide whether the circumstances are such that they should take one of the specified courses. I do not think that the amendment would help the courts in deciding when the circumstances were such that they should require exclusion.
Broadly, the Government are satisfied that Sir George Baker was correct in concluding that the exercise of this discretion by the judge operates well. We do not seek to change the practice of the courts. It is therefore right that new section 8(3) should be declaratory, as Sir George Baker recommended. We agree with him that the courts have interpreted section 8 fairly and sensibly in a way that fully protects the rights of defendants in Northern Ireland. Clause 4, as drafted, seeks to put that practice on a statutory basis. The amendments would go further than that and, in doing so, disturb the careful balance that has to be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of society as a whole to expect authorities to deal effectively with terrorism by bringing terrorists to justice before the courts.
Amendment No. 24 would require a court to exclude a statement made by a person in police custody if the police had unreasonably exercised their power under clause 13(7)—the power to delay access to a solicitor or to direct that consultation take place in the presence of a police officer. It is better that this matter should not be left to the discretion of the judge. He has the discretion, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred, to exclude any statement to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice. Anyone who has studied the practice of the courts in Northern Ireland in recent years could not conclude other than that they have operated this fairly and in the interests of the accused.
I must therefore ask the House not to change the present arrangements and to reject the two amendments.

Mr. Archer: Trying to be objective, I am bound to say that, by any test of logic, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) had the better of that exchange. This is not a matter on which we feel so strongly that it would be right to divide the House at this hour. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

EXTENSION OF CATEGORIES OF PERSONS ABOUT WHOM IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COLLECT INFORMATION

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 6, leave out from beginning to first 'any' in line 11 and insert
(b) after paragraph (d) there shall be added "; and (e)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in page 5, line 6, leave out `paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph:.

No. 12, in page 5, leave out line 7.

No. 13, in page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 10.

Dr. Mawhinney: I note that the Government amendment is paralleled by the amendment tabled by the official Opposition and the Official Unionists.
When clause 8 was discussed in Committee, the two members of the Committee most closely concerned were the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Both selflessly and passionately rejected the proposal that section 22(2) of the 1978 Act should be extended so that elected representatives in Northern Ireland were afforded a protection not shared by their constituents. In the light of their reaction, the Government have reconsidered the clause and decided that the only extension should be to include former members of the categories already listed in section 22(2), namely, the security forces, the prison service, the judiciary and officers of the court.

Mr. Archer: I rise only to say that I endorse all that the Minister has just said. In the circumstances I do not propose to move our amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is one of the many matters in which a degree of unanimity, which perhaps surprised members of the Committee, was achieved as a result of our discussions. It remains for me to add only that, having further consulted my colleagues, I found them fully in agreement with the line that I took in Committee. We therefore welcome the Government amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

OFFENCES RELATING TO BEHAVIOUR AND DRESS IN PUBLIC PLACES

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No.14, in page 5, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

"Display of support in public for a proscribed organisation.

`9 — (1) The following section shall be substitued for section 25 of the 1978 Act—

25. Any person who in a public place—
(a) wears any item of dress; or
(b) wears, carries or displays any article,
in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six moths or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine, or both.".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 15.

Dr. Mawhinney: Amendment No. 14 redefines the offence under section 25 of the 1978 Act so that it is now identical to the equivalent offence in Great Britain under section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) questioned how the original form of the provision, which refers to a person behaving in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation, might be interpreted. The amendment narrows the offence to


certain types of behaviour — wearing, carrying or displaying any article that is likely to arouse such apprehension -and so removes some areas of doubt.

Amendment No. 15 is purely consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 5, line 16, leave out 'that section and in'.

Clause 11

EXPIRY AND EVENTUAL REPEAL OF 1978 ACT

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 5, at end insert—
'(10) The repeal of the 1978 Act shall not affect the application of any provision of sections 28 and 28A of that Act in relation to any right to compensation under section 28 which arises before the date when the repeal takes effect.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 26.

Dr. Mawhinney: The amendment safeguards the position of any person who suffers damage or loss through an action taken under the Act before its repeal. If a person has a claim outstanding when the repeal takes effect, that claim will continue to be dealt with as if the Act was still in force. Similarly, if a person has suffered loss or damage and has not yet made a claim, he may make his application after the repeal, provided that he does so within the time limit provided in section 28.
Amendment No. 26 simply provides that new subsection (10) shall not itself be repealed when the 1978 Act is repealed.
These are straightforward amendments, and I trust that they will command the support of the House.

Ms. Clare Short: I echo the words of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). In Committee, it was surprising how much we agreed on, despite the varying views that were taken. I think that there is a case for discussing some of the legislation in detail. The convergence of views is encouraging for the democratic process. This is not a controversial Government amendment. It protects those who need to be compensated for the damage that they have suffered as a consequence of the unhappy politics in Northern Ireland. The Opposition, therefore, accept the Government amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED OF DETENTION UNDER TERRORISM PROVISIONS

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection (1) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom that subsection applies.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 22.

Dr. Mawhinney: In Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) moved an amendment requiring that a person on whom statutory rights are conferred—clauses 12 and 13 — should be informed of these rights. I should emphasise, as did my

hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, that in practice when a person is arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 or for any scheduled offence the RUC is careful to ensure that he is aware of his rights, and it provides him with a card setting out those rights. However, the Government accept that it would be appropriate to set out on the face of the Bill the requirement to inform a detained person of his rights, and these amendments to clauses 12 and 13 achieve that aim. I commend them to the House.

Mr. McWilliam: I thank the Minister for putting into legislation the undertaking that was given in Committee. It was a serious debate. We felt very strongly about this matter, and the new wording fully brings the Bill into line with what we discussed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 22, leave out from 'period' to end of line 24 and insert—
'referred to in subsection (4A)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 and 23.

Dr. Mawhinney: These amendments are intended to meet the criticism that was made in Committee by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that the wording of clauses 12 and 13 concerning the maximum period for which the exercise of the rights conferred by those clauses may be delayed was ambiguous, or at least unclear. The amendments do not change the substance of the provision for delay, but they show more clearly the extent of the permitted delay. Where the detained person was being examined before his detention in accordance with an order under section 13 of the 1984 Act—for example, by an examining officer at a seaport or airport— the period of 48 hours runs from the start of the examination. In all other cases, the period of 48 hours runs from the time that the person was detained.
I trust that the House will welcome these amendments in the interest of clarification.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am in duty bound to express satisfaction with the amendment. It does not often fall to us to get the better of a parliamentary draftsman. On the rare occasions when we do, the draftsmen are always very generous and ready to come to our aid with an even better proposal than that which we had put forward. This, for me, will remain one of those occasions.

Mr. McWilliam: I echo what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee. The debates about draftsmanship were at least as interesting as the debates about the substance of the Bill. I welcome the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No 21, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
`(4A) That period is
(a) (except where paragraph (b) applies) the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when the detained person was first detained under the terrorism provisions;
(b) where the detained person was, prior to the lime when he was first so detained being examined in accordance with any order under section 13 of the


Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when he was first so examined.'.

Clause 13

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 10, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection (1) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom that subsection applies.'.

No 23, in page 10, line 30, leave out from 'period' to
'; or' in line 32 and insert
`referred to in section 12(4A)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 24

COMMENCEMENT, EXPIRY, REVIVAL AND EVENTUAL REPEAL OF ACT

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 17, line 5, leave out `(9)' and insert `(10)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 18, line 31, at end insert—
`(a) he may detain all or any of the persons found on those premises for the duration of the search.'.
During the debate in Committee, hon. Members on both sides were startled to discover that the power to search premises was thought by implication to include a power to detain persons, other than the particular person who was the object of the search, who might be present on those premises at the time. There was a general feeling that if that power was implicit, it ought to be made explicit in the terms of the statute, and in particular that the length of any such detention should be limited. That anxiety had been expressed by Sir George Baker in his report.
In Committee, we considered whether it was practicable to provide a four-hour period of detention in those circumstances, but upon consideration it seems more reasonable that the power to detain, without which some searches would be physically impracticable or liable to frustration, ought to be limited to the duration of the search itself. I hope that that will be found acceptable to the Government.
It may be that the interpretation is correct, that a power to search implies the power to direct any person not to leave the premises or to move from one part of the premises to another, but, in the light of the tense circumstances in which those powers are exercised, I hope that the Government will agree that it would be far better, as a minor amendment, if those powers were set out precisely on the face of the statute.

Mr. Scott: In view of all the pleasant things that have been said during the course of this stage of the consideration of the Bill about the confluence of views and so on, it would be nice if, on this last amendment, it was possible for me to accept the reasonable point that has been put by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). However, I am afraid that I have to act the hard

man for once, and reiterate what I said in Committee when a similar amendment backed by the right hon. Gentleman was under consideration.
It is quite clear in law that the statutory power to enter and search premises does implicitly carry with it the power to do anything that is reasonably necessary to achieve the object of the search. There are other statutes that confer such powers — for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Criminal Law Act 1967, and drugs legislation—but nowhere do they spell out the ancillary steps that may be taken in order to make a search effective. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable case, it would be odd to single out searches under this particular piece of legislation in the way proposed by the amendment when it is not reflected in other legislation that provides the power to search. Therefore, I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There may be a disadvantage in varying in this instance from the conferment of powers to search in other statutory contexts. Therefore, although I think that there is some danger attendant upon the exercise of a power to search without specific power to do those various things in the course of a search, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 18, line 40, at end insert—
' In section 18 (power to stop and question)
(a) in subsection (1)(b), after "other" insert "recent"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "imprisonment" onwards substitute "a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".'.

No. 31, in page 18, line 41, at end insert—
' In section 32 (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (1), after "orders conferred by" insert "section 9A above and";
(b) in subsection (3), for the words from the beginning to "Schedules)" substitute "Subject to subsection (5) below, no order or regulations under this Act";
(c) in subsection (4), for the words from the beginning to "approved) shall" substitute "Subject to subsection (5) below, orders and regulations under this Act shall, if not so approved in draft,"; and—
(d) after that subsection add—
(5) Subsections (3) and (4) above do not apply to—
(a) any order under section 19A above or under Schedule 1 or 3 to this Act; or
(b) any regulations under section 5A above; but a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Dr. Mawhinney]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
There are two points that I should like to put on record at this stage of the Bill that I hope will show the willingness of the Government to respond to some of the views put forward in Committee.
Those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall the general concern that was expressed during the course of our discussions to ensure that Parliament was able to scrutinise effectively the emergency provisions legislation on the occasion of the


annual renewal debates. I gave certain assurances about the provision of extra information—for example, that the Government would provide what statistical information was available. However, I believe that it would be for the assistance of the House, and, indeed, the other place, if, each year, a more objective assessment of the way in which the legislation had been operating could be prepared. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is therefore considering whether it might be right to ask an independent person of standing to conduct a review and prepare a report for Parliament. I hope that that will facilitate the Houe in coming to a view about the way in which the Act is working.
The House will recall that we will renew the Act on an annual basis and that it has an overall life of five years. In Committee I was anxious to ensure that that annual review was as meaningful and penetrating as possible. I hope that if my right hon. Friend decides that eventually that is the right course to take, that approach will commend itself to the House. I shall be glad to take account of anything that is said in response to that during this Third Reading debate.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend and I acknowledge the desirability of providing a clear statement of the powers available to the security forces under the emergency legislation and giving a clear indication of the ways in which those powers should be exercised. As I said in Committee, it is the Government's intention to introduce for Northern Ireland, by Order in Council, provisions equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including provisions requiring the introduction of codes of practice equivalent to those drawn up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those codes would be of general application.
However, it is clear that codes directly equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes would not bite on the exercise of emergency powers. Code A, for example, deals with powers of search that are exercised on the basis of "reasonable grounds for suspicion", whereas some of those in the emergency provisons Act are exercised in order to "ascertain whether" munitions and so on are present. There are similar limitations on the other codes.
We believe that what is required is a separate code of practice governing the exercise of powers under the emergency legislation. The Government, therefore, intend to introduce a code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers in Northern Ireland. The code will not be a statutory code. We believe that such a code will be in the best interests of the security forces by contributing to greater understanding and confidence between them and the general public. It will also be in the interests of the general public to have a clear statement of the security forces' powers and of the way in which those powers should be operated.
I should like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. I compliment all those who played any part in the earlier stages of the Bill on the constructive way in which they approached it. We improved the legislation substantially on its way through Committee. I hope that the Government have been seen to respond positively and constructively both in Committee and today on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Archer: This is not the time to embark on a further debate, and I do not propose to do so. However, I endorse

what the Minister said in his final remarks. On Second Reading I called the Bill a mixed bag because I could not think of a more elegant expression on the spur of the moment. I said that we would place no impediment in the Government's path when they introduced progressive measures. The Bill represents an improvement in a number of respects on the previous law, and I hope that we shall continue to encourage the Government in well doing.
We have debated the less attractive parts of the Bill. That was possible because the Government introduced the provisions by way of a Bill, not by unamendable orders. I imagine that that was because the Government had to do it in that way, and not because they had acquired a sudden aversion to unamendable orders, although I might wish that it were otherwise.
We have had profitable debates. We have not reached unanimity, but we have directed our minds to one another's arguments and I believe that the Bill is better in consequence. Even at this late stage, the Minister has given us two items of good news. I shall not attempt to react to them now. In any event, it may be better to reflect on them before we say any more, but good news they certainly are. I, too, pay tribute to all those who have contributed to our debates. We have had enjoyable and useful debates and I hope that we shall have such debates more often.

Mr. Molyneaux: During the day we on this Bench have been asked why we are participating in the debate. The answer will be obvious to some, but not to all. It w ill not be obvious to all, because those who were elected to this House in 1983 from all parts of the United Kingdom have probably never seen Northern Ireland legislation being treated in the normal way by a Bill and not by an Order in Council. This has been a lesson for all of us who have been present in the Chamber since the debate began in mid-afternoon and for those in the Palace of Westminster who occasionally looked in upon our deliberations. We are grateful for that passing interest.
The House has been inquiring how these complex issues could have been dealt with by an Order in Council. You, Mr. Speaker, know very well what would have happened had this been an Order in Council instead of a Second Reading, a Committee stage upstairs and now Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House. We would have had a debate of 90 minutes, two fairly lengthy opening speeches, a limited number of contributions, a curious eagerness on the part of the Minister replying to encourage as many contributions as possible, and then, not surprisingly, find that he had insufficient time to deal with the many points that had been raised. He would then offer the consolation that he would write to every hon. Member who had raised points in the course of the debate.
In his earlier contributions to the debate, the Secretary of State expressed appreciation of the privilege that had been his of reading the Hansard reports of the Committee stage and of being here — like myself — at a comparatively late stage in the proceedings having followed those earlier discussions in Committee. The Secretary of State said that the House had benefited from the debate being taken on the Floor of the House this afternoon and this evening. He is in the very happy position of being able to perpetuate that sense of privilege and pleasure by simply deciding that from henceforth all major Northern Ireland legislation will be treated by Bills in the normal way and not by Order in Council.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) reminded us that the Bill is merely one part of the necessary legislative armoury, given that the emergency may continue for some considerable time. Even that armoury in total will make no significant impact upon the continuing terrorist campaign. It is continuing, because there has been no reduction in violence since the year in which the present Parliament was elected and since the present Government were reinstalled in office in 1983.
Far from a reduction, the violence has increased, despite the fact that in a press release on 15 November 1985 — a year and a half ago — the Prime Minister explained and justified her reasons for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the following terms :
I entered into this agreement because I was not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence.
After a year and a half of experimentation and unfounded optimism, the Prime Minister is still tolerating that continuing violence. We would not unreasonably ask from this Bench, "How long is she prepared to tolerate it?"
While the Committee has laboured diligently, and the debate in the House has to some extent supplemented the Committee's work, and while I join in the tributes paid to those who served on the Committee, it is my clear duty to warn the House that if and when the Bill receives the Royal Assent the effect on murder and destruction will be very marginal indeed.
I shall not transgress by dealing with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The less said about cases of terminal illness, the better. Because we are considering a measure that deals with security, or the lack of it — a measure that will become part of a larger apparatus — we should not deceive ourselves or the country by subscribing to the mere superstition that any promises of co-operation from any Dublin Government who depend upon the life support system of one or two mavericks in the Dail will ever make a significant contribution to eradicating terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Recently, the Prime Minister took issue with me when I said that at least 18 people had been murdered in the first three months of this year. She said that some victims of the strife were members of the so-called Irish National Liberation Army, to which I must reply, "So what?" She ignored the fact that those murdering one another had crossed and recrossed the frontier to commit those crimes. Although I do not wish to disillusion and dishearten those who served on the Committee or who contributed to the debate today by suggesting that their work has been in vain, I should say that unless Her Majesty's Government bring themselves to recognise that they must recast their entire political, economic and security strategy, it will have been in vain.
The Secretary of State quoted Sir George Baker's conclusion at page 71 of the report, which stated :
If 'doomsday' arrives in whatever form it will be the duty of the then Government to bring any necessary legislation before Parliament immediately.
There is a real fear in many minds that the Province is careering towards "doomsday". In words slightly different from those used by Sir George Baker, I say with the support of my colleagues on this Bench that it is the duty of the Government to free themselves at long last from the shackles imposed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, as

Her Majesty's Government, to take single-handedly such action as may be necessary to arrest the drift that has gone on for far too long.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has borne many burdens in a tortured Province with courage, humility and patience. I heartily agreed when he said that he was glad that the legislation was in the form of a Bill. Many Conservative and Unionist Members agree that, as far as possible, Northern Ireland legislation should be conducted like other legislation and that Northern Ireland should be treated as though it was truly part of the United Kingdom. But I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I shall not comment on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My views on it are known to the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) rightly commented on the amenity of our debates on the Bill. His attitude and speeches contributed greatly to that amenity. What has also been agreeable is the way in which nationalist and Ulster Unionist Members have taken part in our debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House and have been in full agreement on some amendments and new clauses. This one Parliament of the United Kingdom is where dialogue can take place between nationalist and Unionist as it has not always taken place in assemblies constructed artificially across the water. There has been unity——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[ Mr. Neubert.]

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Although there have been differences, there has been unity in the House and in Committee on the desire that as soon as possible emergency powers should be dispensed with. In all quarters of the Standing Committee and in the House there have been diligent searches to find ways in which the powers can be lessened or softened without prejudice to that supreme interest—the safety of the subject.
I support the Third Reading and congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Bill.

Mr. Alton: I shall not disappoint the Government and Opposition Whips who wish to commence the debate on the next business as close to 10 o'clock as possible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about the unanimity in the Chamber today. Although I could not be a member of the Standing Committee, it is clear from the debate that an attitude of partnership prevailed there and that the Government conceded some of the suggestions. I am grateful to them for that.
Today's debate has demonstrated that when hon. Members come to this Chamber it is possible for them to


argue their case and to ensure that the legitimate views of the Unionist majority can be put forward in a place where they will be listened to. If there is to be any hope in Northern Ireland, it is vital that debate should take place in the Chamber and not on the streets of Belfast. Therefore, it was conforting to hear the remarks of several Unionist Members but especially those of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who always speaks with enormous sincerity and considerable force about the problems facing the Province.
If there is to be dialogue in the Chamber and partnership amongst parties in trying to ensure that there is victory over the IRA and other terrorist groups, there must be cross-border co-operation. That is why I believe the Government's strategy of endeavouring to achieve agreement across the border through cross-border co-operation on security is right. The tragedy of the last 18 months, to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred, is a tragedy not just of the last 18 months but of the last 18 years almost during which 2,500 people have died, of whom 200 were from the security forces, and 24,000 have been injured. That is why there is such a desperate need for co-operation on both sides of the border to achieve the objectives enunciated during today's debate.
I am glad to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Bill. We wish it were not necessary to have emergency powers legislation. We wish it were possible to have fewer Orders in Council and more opportunities like this to debate the issues across the Floor of the House, but we recognise the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we will not oppose the Government tonight.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The people of Northern Ireland have been told by the Government that this Bill will
make possible the effective pursuit of terrorism".
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State told the House that it was the Government's
determination to pursue the campaign to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from the … Province". — [Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1084.]
How often have the Government said that from the Dispatch Box during the past 18 years? More times than I care to remember. Ironically, it is most emphatically declared immediately after some fresh horrendous terrorist atrocity in Northern Ireland. When such declarations are made by Government spokesmen, they are usually made in ringing tones to emphasise the Government's determination and resolution.
However, the truth is that it is the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army who have to face the relentless campaign of violence and death at the hands of the evil men who, for too long, have paraded and damned the face of Ulster. That truth is known throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. Of course, it does not stop there. Every decent law-abiding citizen lives under the shadow of death from the bomb and the bullet of the Provisional IRA gunmen. In that, I include any other terrorist, no matter what his political aspirations or religious affiliations.
I do not believe that this Bill will protect individuals in Northern Ireland from the terrorists. Having listened to the speeches today, I have come to the conclusion that the

Bill is a nice exercise in British statesmanship, showing how moderate the Englishare. I doubt whether the French, the Germans, the Japanese or any other people who are subjected to terrorism would have given way to some of the expressions that I have heard in the House today.
However, at least this debate gives me the opportunity to pay another tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. to those gallant men who live in Northern Ireland and whose wives and children are in Northern Ireland and are all too easily a target for the IRA. I pay tribute to them and to the regular members of the Army and the UDR.
It is ironic that the Irish Republic, which the Government tell us is more committed than ever before to fighting IRA terrorists in conjunction with the United Kingdom, delivers the most thunderous protests to London whenever a British soldier wanders a few yards across the border on to Republican soil. The Irish Republic is jealous of its territory. I wish that the United Kingdom was jealous about the territory of Northern Ireland and made sure that the Irish Republic abandoned its claim to be part of the United Kingdom.
However, what sickens me more, and what sickens many people — it is in this light that the present legislation will be viewed—is the abject apologies which follow from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office the moment that Dublin protests. Our counterparts in Europe would have a pretty robust answer to anyone who criticised a soldier for, for example, putting a listening device a few yards in to the Republic to protect himself and his colleagues, his brother soldiers, from the IRA.
I have only a few more minutes and wish to make only one more comment. I should like permission to make that comment and, if I am out of order, I know that you, Mr. Speaker will call me to order. Every time during the past decade that Unionists have urged Her Majesty's Government to take steps to restore a degree of democratic control to the elected representatives of the Ulster people, the answer has always been the same: no devolution of power can be made without the support of both sections of the Ulster Community. We accepted that over a period. It was the solemn pledge given by the Government. However, that solemn pledge was shamelessly abandoned when, behind the backs of the Ulster people, and without consultation with the representatives of the Unionist majority, the Government entered into the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I am convinced that there can be no political progress in Northern Ireland until the accord is replaced by an agreement worked out by the elected representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is where the Government have created a bar to progress, because the creation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement stops that. Until we make progress—I hope it comes sooner rather than later — we shall listen to pious words from successive Secretaries of State about the Government's determination to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. Sadly, the death toll will continue to climb.

Mr. Maginnis: Just as on Report I said that I had mixed feelings about the detention provision, so I have mixed feelings about the Bill as a whole. I come, as on Second Reading, without any abatement of the feeling of alienation that I suffered in this House on 15 November 1985. The people who have died in Northern Ireland to


maintain their British citizenship have been betrayed and there has been no sign from hon. Members that that is understood.
The Bill is just so many words, and it will do absolutely nothing to solve the problems that we face in Northern Ireland. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State tell the House that he was retaining in the Bill the element that deals with internment or detention because an emergency may arise or a Doomsday may come when no Government "could stand idly by". Those were his exact words. The Government have stood idly by for the past 17 years and allowed terrorism to march unhindered through the Province. I know that it is hurtful to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to hear these facts yet again, and I shall not dwell on them, but 154 of the 181 murders in my constituency have not been resolved. In the words of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, following incidents of violence, the people of Northern Ireland take hope or fall into the pit of despair.
On 30 March, sadly, a Regular soldier, Iain O'Connor, was killed in Belfast, and the Northern Ireland Office provided the BBC with a statement, as it always does. In that information it stated that this was the first death of a Regular soldier for eight months, so there had been a reduction in violence in Northern Ireland. I doubt whether the Ministers even remember that on 9 July 1986 the last two regular soldiers to be killed were members of the Royal Anglians, Karl Davies and Robert Bertram. We all regret the deaths of members of the Regular Army.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) paid tribute to the RUC. I should like to pay tribute to the Regular Army which serves in Northern Ireland and the Ulster Defence Regiment. If, for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the measure of violence is the number of Regular Army men who die, and whom obviously we must hear about, I have no faith in them and I despise their efforts to solve our problems.
What they did not tell us was that 42 other people died in Northern Ireland in those eight months. Those facts were hidden from the great British public. I wish that the Minister would stop muttering to himself and listen to what I have to tell him. He has become the Robinson Crusoe of the Conservative party. He is the longest serving Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and he has caused more offence to the people of Northern Ireland than any other Minister. It is intolerable that we must listen to a Minister whose rich and fruity tones—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to say something?

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I muttered that I thought the hon. Gentleman was not enhancing his case by indulging in such personal remarks.

Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry if the facts of the tragedy of Northern Ireland offend hon. Members.
The Minister, as a wine drinker, may appreciate this. I was saying that his rich and fruity tones are galling to the people of Northern Ireland when they listen to him on the television trying to justify the unjustifiable—the failure of the Government to deal with the tragedy of our Province.
We have now reached a stage when Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are disliked— I shall use only the word "disliked"—to an extent which is second only to the extent that we dislike, detest and revile the terrorists

who kill our people. They have mocked us through the television screen. They have been the apologists for the Government of the Irish Republic—a country which, whether we like it or not, has given solace and shelter to the terrorists who kill my constituents.
Last Friday my 32nd constituent died at the hands of terrorists since my election to the House on 9 January 1983. How many hon. Members, if they had to come to the House and speak of 32 people who had died at the hands of terrorists in their constituencies, could accept the charm and honeyed words — words of apparent understanding — which have come from the Dispatch Box this evening? For the Northern Ireland Office to tell the great British public that terrorism is on the decrease in Ulster is a shame.
I shall not go back to the pre-Agreement days. Let me go back to 1986. Between 1 January and 8 April, 10 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. In 1987 in the same period 22 people died, an increase of 120 per cent. Yet the Government tell us that terrorism is being contained.
Cross-border co-operation has existed as far back as I can remember, right back to the first time that I put on a uniform in 1958. It existed because decent members of the Garda Siochana liaised with decent members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on a buddy-buddy basis. It was not good enough, because it was always hindered by the Government in Dublin, but it worked. It was never satisfactory, but it was done with good will. We have now formalised that agreement. No longer can the Garda Siochana liaise on the buddy-buddy basis with their counterparts in the RUC; rather they must feed upwards through the bureaucratic system what information they have, feed it across and back down again.
Ministers must listen and stop shaking their heads. I talk to the policemen who have to do the work on the border. I am talking not about the constables or the sergeants, or even the inspectors; I am talking about senior police officers. They tell me that co-operation has never been less effective than it is today.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Look at the Minister of State laughing and shaking his head.

Mr. Maginnis: Of course he is still laughing and shaking his head. Despite all the years that he has spent with us, he is incapable of understanding how we feel. He tends to believe the propaganda of those who tell him that it is a sectarian problem; the "Prots" do not like the Catholics and the Catholics do not like the "Prots". That is the greatest load of rubbish. If the Minister knew what went on in my constituency, where I represent my entire community, he would stop shaking his head and listen.
The hon. Member for North Down alluded to the fact that the Secretary of State made the most abject apology to the Government of the Irish Republic. That Government have been set in joint authority over the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman made the most abject apology about a listening device placed a few yards inside the Irish Republic. Not only did he make the most abject apology, but he assured his counterpart that the officer or officers responsible would be disciplined for committing the offence. In reality, that offence was an attempt to try to save the lives of their own men.
On another occasion that co-operative Government detained a Regular Army soldier who happened to cross


a farmyard out of Northern Ireland into Southern Ireland. that farmyard belonged to "Slab" Murphy. Hon. Members may have seen an article about him and the way in which he has exploited the situation over the years for personal gain. He is a smuggler. He has close connections with and could operate only with the permission and acquiesence of the Provisional IRA. It was from his yard that the soldier was abducted and taken off to the local Garda station. I agree he was released, but I did not hear one word of objection from the Northern Ireland Office about the way in which our soldiers are treated when they happen to move across that imaginary line and transgress, by a few yards, the territory of the Irish Republic.
In the past I have come to the House and told how terrorists walk the streets of my town. They are known terrorists. I named one of them in this House. He was later arrested in Scotland where he had gone to perpetrate an outrage against the Great British public. He is now in prison in Great Britain. Those terrorists who still walk the streets of my town are not the first or second, but the third generation of terrorists since the 1970s. Terrorists tend to be men in their twenties. Those terrorists of the 1970s retired two generations back. Most of them retired unscathed to encourage the next generations to follow in their footsteps. Their advice was, "Be fleet of foot. We will condition you on how to deal with the RUC when they interrogate you about a crime. The law is inadequate so do not worry. There will be no or only minimum convictions against you." That is what we face when we discuss the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. We are discussing something against which this Bill is ineffective.
I see two generations of known gunmen walking the streets of my town. They are free men, freer than their victims or potential victims—those people who uphold and try to enforce the law. That is the reality. It is something with which the Northern Ireland Office, the Bill and, sadly, the Government are impotent to deal.
I know that Conservative Members believe that they will be returned to Government at the next election, be it May, June or October. They will consider inflation and tell us that it is steady or, indeed, going down. They will consider the way in which the Government have dealt with militant trades unionism and the problems in our schools. They will claim "Success, success, success."
Those hon. Members should consider the streets of their towns. I have had invitations to speak in the constituencies of hon. Members. and I go round and meet members of the Great British public. At such meetings I say, "So you feel your Government have succeeded. But would you feel content walking down the streets of Wolverhampton, Bournemouth, Preston, Liverpool, Glasgow or London at half-past 10 at night with your handbag on your arm?" The little old dear sitting in the front row looks horrified, because she would not. I tell those meetings that if their Government have not got the courage to deal with law and order at that level, how can they deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland?
What emergency will force or motivate the Secretary of State to take action against terrorism? What is that emergency? How many people have to die before the Secretary of State realises that British citizens in Ulster deserve more than the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have brought to them over 17 years?
Does the Secretary of State honestly believe, and can he stand up and tell me that the time that we have given in this House today to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill will make one iota of difference to the people of Belleek, Garrison, Aughnacloy, Newtown Butler or Rosslea? If the Secretary of State can say that, I want to hear it and my people want to hear it. Despite the welcome that I received from the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland, there is no point in my coming here in the belief that I can do good for the people I represent unless the House is willing to listen to me and to take this piece of paper and study it. Is the Secretary of State willing to take it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maginnis: If he is, Mr. Speaker, I apologise. If he is not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the Benches and not remain in the Gangway, please?

Mr. Maginnis: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

National Health Service

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 368), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient for the House to discuss also the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 371), dated 10th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.1., 1987, No. 401), dated 11 th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 367), dated 4th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 385), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 386), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 387), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.

Mr. Dobson: These days a lot of attention is being paid in the House to the next general election, although in view of the recent polls the Prime Minister may have missed the 7 May boat and the general election could be as many as 14 months away. But first, I should like to draw attention to the general election of 1979.

Mr. James Couchman: Boring.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Boring." I should like to draw attention to the basis on which the Tory party fought that general election.
On the Thursday before the 1979 general election the Daily Mail, which has always been a favourite gutter rag of the Tory party, obliged its Tory friends by running a major headline which read, "Labour's dirty dozen". It said that the Labour party was putting about 12 lies and it would give the Tory answers. Lie No. 9 was said to be:
There are Tory proposals for higher prescription charges … Truth: 'We have no intention of increasing … such charges', says Mrs. Thatcher".

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: That is an old lie. In the course of this nonsence, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Prime Minister actually said on 18 April 1979? She said at a press conference:

I doubt very much whether any responsible Government could say that over a period of five years, regardless of what happened to the value of money, they would not put up prescription charges.

Mr. Dobson: The Daily Mail article was published a week before the general election.

Mr. Nicholls: So was this.

Mr. Dobson: The Tories were in opposition and the Prime Minister was quoted. This is in quotation marks in the Daily Mail. She never sought for one moment to deny what was stated in quotation marks on the front page of the Daily Mail that Thursday.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly will not.
What is more, the right hon. Lady then rewarded the editor of the Daily Mail with a knighthood. Either he was lying and she gave him a knighthood, or he was telling the truth and she gave him a knighthood. She probably has ceased to distinguish between the two.
When that promise was made on the front of the Daily Mail, the prescription charge was just 20p. The Tories won the general election and, before the year was out, that charge which was not going to be increased had been increased twice to a total of 70p — a 350 per cent. increase in a year.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way. There is not enough time.
There have been seven more increases since those initial two increases, taking us to the present proposition of a total of 240p—an increase of 1,200 per cent. That rate of increase even exceeds the rate of increase in the value of British Telecom multiple share purchases by Tory Members.
The Labour party is opposed in principle and in practice to these charges. No other party is so opposed. With the benefit of the document which reads
Conservative Research Department Brief on the English and Scottish National Health Service charges",
which was prepared for this debate, under the "general points to make" given in the advice to Tory Members we find the following:
The Conservative party has always maintained that those who can afford to should make a fair contribution to the costs of the NHS.
The fairest tax is income tax. People who can afford to pay income tax can contribute to the costs of the National Health Service in that way.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Dobson: No, I certainly will not.
The SDP, which could be described as the spiritual home of prescription charges, remains in favour of them. I understand that the Doctor has told the other David that the Liberal party is in favour of prescription charges. Therefore, the Labour party remains the only party opposed to these charges.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for the record why in the original Bill the Labour party provided that there should


be a facility for charging and why the Labour Government in the 1960s, having abolished prescription charges, reintroduced them?

Mr. Dobson: In my view, they brought them back under pressure from people in the City who had no intention —[Interruption.] I may look as though I am getting on a bit, but no one can accuse me of being in the House as long ago as 1966. In my view, that decision was wrong and the increase should never have been introduced in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who was present then, was one of those who voted against the introduction, and all credit to him.
We believe that the implementation of these charges proves to be a deterrent to people seeking treatment.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. I shall develop my own arguments. [Interruption.] I am normally very willing to give way, but as the Government, who organise the business of the House, have organised it in such a way that a debate of an hour and a half has already been reduced to an hour by the previous debate running over, I do not think that it is reasonable to be expected to give way.
Other people share our concern about the impact of prescription charges on poorer people. The British Medical Association says that the charges have reached a level that deters people from seeking medical treatment.
It says:
Any extension of the present exemptions"—
which has been suggested as a way round the problem by some people—
is likely to introduce further anomalies and raise disproportionately the burden on those paying the charges" It describes the present list of exemptions for the chronically sick as incomplete, illogical and open to attack —and the members of the British Medical Association are masters of understatement.
In Stockport recently, I visited the Shaw Heath health centre. A general practitioner there told me that he now asks his poorer patients if they are exempt from charges. If they say, "Yes, we are exempt from charges", he prescribes all the drugs that they need. If they say that they are not exempt, he either omits the second or third most important item—if it is a multiple-item prescription—or puts all the items on the prescriptions and tells the patients which are the most important items so that if they cannot afford all of them they will know which they can best do without. The other doctors present— and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one, including that doctor, is either a member or a supporter of the Labour party—said that they did the same.
Figures from the prescription checking bureau, which are available to Ministers, confirm that that is so, with as many as 100,000 items a year on multiple-item prescription forms not being bought.
A further development is that doctors whose social consciences exceed that of the present Government —and, God knows, that must include most of the medical profession — are increasingly prescribing more than a 30-day supply of drugs for people on repeat prescriptions to keep down the costs. In the spring of 1986, the proportion of 30 days-plus supplies had reached no less a level than 16·5 per cent. of prescriptions. That response by doctors is at the same time both humane and disturbing:

most people agree that supplies prescribed should be kept to a minimum, because access to large numbers of drugs and long supplies are potentially dangerous both to the patients and to other people living with or helping them. All those are the consequences of the grasping policies of the present Governent.
No doubt the Minister will switch on his Norm-speak auto-pilot and repeat all the stuff about three quarters of the public not paying for their prescriptions — [Interruption.] Oh, it is true. He will go on to suggest that the remaining quarter who pay for the 80 million prescriptions that are paid for are flush with money— perhaps not the sort of people who could afford to make multiple applications for privatised shares in public assets, but people for whom paying, say £7·20 for a three-item prescription will not be a strain. But of course not everyone is a QC specialising in company law.
Let me advise Ministers — and any hon. Member proposing to support them in the Lobby tonight — to look at the official leaflet entitled "NHS Prescriptions: How to Get them Free". Tory Members will no doubt be able to call on the services of their accountants or lawyers if they find it difficult to understand—and I suggest that they may find it difficult to understand. The section on low incomes reads as follows:
What counts as a low income depends on how many people there are in your family and how much money you've got left after you've paid essential outgoings and taken account of certain allowances. You can work this out for yourself (all these amounts are each week)".
It then lists
rent or mortgage rates life insurance premiums HP payments for essential household goods fares to and from work of you and your partner trade union subs"—
they have not noticed that yet
cost of care of a child or other dependant while you are at work £4 of your earnings £4 of your partner's earnings if you are a lone parent, half your earnings between £4and £20".
When we have done all that it says:
Take this total away from the money you have coming in each week and see how much you have left. Now see whether it's worth claiming free prescriptions. It's worth claiming if, for example, you're single, not a householder, and don't have much more than about … £33 left each week, or if you're a couple and don't have much more than about £53 left each week … or if you're a couple with two children, one aged under five … and don't have much more than about £75 left each week.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall finish this point, and then I will decide whether to give way.
Ministers should consider the finances of those who have just a little more than that left at the end of each week and who therefore do not qualify for free prescriptions. Using the family expenditure survey that is provided by the Government, a couple—after the deductions I have mentioned—with £56 or £58 left to them at the end of each week will spend more than £45 a week of that on fuel, light, food, clothing and footwear alone, leaving them with £11 or £13 a week. Out of that, they have to pay for everything else that I have not already listed: for soap, washing-up liquid, matches, shoe polish, phone calls,


stamps. That leaves them with less than a fiver. They will be unable to save up for a holiday, yet they will have to pay for prescriptions. At the end of the week they will not have enough money left to pay for a three-item prescription.

Mr. Favell: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I shall not burden the House by giving other examples. Many people who are not well off are having to pay for prescriptions and are deterred from seeking medical treatment because they have to pay. That is borne out by the prescription checking bureau figures, by the British Medical Association representations and by the representations that are made by doctors to Members of Parliament. If I had to choose between all those bits of evidence and something from a Minister in this Government, I know where I believe the truth lies.
I do not intend to refer tonight to dental charges other than to welcome the news that they are not to be increased.

Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a parliamentary private secretary and that it is traditional for parliamentary private secretaries to keep their traps shut.

Mr. Favell: rose——

Mr. Dobson: Regulations are also before us tonight that will increase the charges for overseas visitors who fall sick when they are here.

Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned my constituency and made certain allegations about a health centre in the constituency. In those circumstances, is it not usual to allow an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who is addressing the House whether he gives way.

Mr. Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It can hardly be further to a point of order that was not a point of order.

Mr. Nicholls: It is a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Front Bench Opposition spokesman in the middle of a speech to yell over the Dispatch Box, "Keep your trap shut?" So far as that is a call to order, should it not be a matter for the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that such matters are best left to the Chair. As I understand it, it was part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Dobson: I always try to raise the tone wherever I go.
Certain people have always put it around that it is possible to come to Britain deliberately to obtain free medical care. It was never free on the NHS. The Government introduced charges for people who fell sick while they were here. There were many people, including some Conservative Members, in 1981 and 1982, when the matter was debated, who felt that it would be damaging to our international reputation to introduce charges for such people.
Nevertheless, the charges were introduced with effect from October 1982 on the assumption that they would bring in the princely sum of £6 million a year. The Government sold our reputation for a mess of pottage. The charges have scarcely raised £6 million in gross takings since their introduction. The Government have consistently refused to give any estimate of the cost of collecting the charges. Nor have they made any estimate of the cost of establishing the charging system, which has had to be set up in each of the 214 health authorities and boards in England, Wales and Scotland.
The Opposition regard the charges as shabby. They are an affront to the principles on which the NHS was established.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Gentleman made it absolutely clear that, in his view at least, prescription charges ought to be abolished. Will he make it plain whether the next Labour Government, if such should ever be returned, would enable people to come here for free treatment under the NHS?

Mr. Dobson: The Minister——

Mr. Nicholls: Answer.

Mr. Dobson: I am happy to answer. The Minister said that people would be able to come here for free treatment. People were never entitled to come here with the intention of receiving free treatment. The Minister should not try to give that myth another run.

Mr. Newton: Does that mean that, in addition to every other control on immigration, visitors must be asked whether there is any possibility of their needing medical treatment while they are in Britain?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that many visitors are already asked that question on arrival. We think that it is wrong that that question, and many others like it, should be asked. It was never lawful for someone to come here seeking free treatment under the NHS, and we do not propose to change that.
Prescription charges are damaging to our health care system. They are damaging to people who are not very well off and who do not benefit from existing exemptions. It is the Labour party's policy, on being returned to office, to reduce them substantially immediately and to phase them out in the lifetime of one Parliament.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I had thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to wind up the debate because I imagined that at least one or two other hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate, but as it seems to be the wish of the House, and certainly of the Opposition, that I should speak now, I shall do so. However, I shall not make many of the remarks that I had intended to make in outlining what these various regulations will do. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) paid scant regard to a large part of the subject matter of tonight's debate and strayed in various ways. Although he gave us a good deal of entertainment, he hardly raised the level of debate on these serious issues.
In the light of the history of this matter, in terms both of the record of the last Labour Government and some of the suggestions about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the election campaign in 1979,


I found some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks extraordinary, and they were convincingly and effectively disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
The great point on which the hon. Member appeared to be clear early in his speech, and about which I understood him to make a ringing declaration, was that prescription charges would disappear in a puff of wind if and when he and his hon. Friends got into office. Although it sounded like that at the beginning, it did not sound like that at the end. By the end, one got the clear impression that these were promises to be made before an election, only to be run away from after it.

Dr. John Marek: The hon. Gentleman can talk!.

Mr. Newton: Not only can I talk, but I intend to talk. What is more, I intend to ask one or two questions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. It is all very well for him to come here and say that he knew that a Labour Government abolished these charges in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968, and when challenged say that had he been here he might have voted against that being done because he thought it was wrong.

Mr. Dobson: That is a loose paraphrase.

Mr. Newton: It is not all that loose.
At any rate, we now know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour Government's of 1964 to 1970 were wrong on at least that matter. The rest of us could probably think of many other matters on which they were wrong. What I want to know from the hon. Gentleman is what gives him any conceivable grounds for believing, in the light of the record of that Government, and of the intervening Labour Government, that any future Labour Government would get anything any more right.

Mr. Dobson: The problem was caused by the City.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman thinks that City gents were responsible for the failure.

Mr. Dobson: There are no gents in the City.

Mr. Newton: It was chaps in the City, or, for all I know, gnomes in the City. I wonder.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was too young to have been here in 1968, and I shall not speculate about that. However, I know that he has been in politics for long enough to know that it was not the people in the City who caused the problems for the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970. The people in the City ran out of their capacity to finance a profligate Labour Government, who had to turn to the international bankers. We had the International Monetary Fund here.

Mr. Frank Haynes: This Government have broken their promises.

Mr. Newton: I can deal with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) as well if need be.
The memory of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not embrace the fact that the following Labour Government were also involved with the IMF. That Labour Government got it all wrong as well, and on that occasion the casualty — more significantly than anything that we are talking about tonight—was the whole National Health Service and above all the hospital building programme. With such a track record in the

1960s, and another in the 1970s, on what does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras base the pathetic belief that any future Labour Government would do any better?

Mr. Michael Stern: I can offer a possible solution to the dilemma that my hon. Friend has just posed. He will recollect that one of the principles to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred — the basic principle of the Health Service, to which he wanted to return — was that the Health Service would eventually wither away. Could a future Labour Government be proposing a return to the basic principles of the Health Service by claiming that they will deal with prescription charges by allowing the Health Service to wither, as they did when last in government and as they had done previously?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is very likely right. I do not say that a future Labour Government would intend the Health Service to wither, but the consequence of their policies in the past has been to wither the service and it is only by dint of considerable effort and, above all. additional investment by this Government that the hospital building programme is now recovering from the effects of the previous Labour Government. Against that background, I find it incredibly stupid — apart from anything else—that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should come here tonight and say that he is willing to give up about £150 million of revenue for the Health Service, which I believe is raised reasonably, which is certainly making a very useful contribution to other aspects of the Health Service and which no Government in their right mind would throw away in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman, at one blow, or gradually as he suggested at the end of his speech.
I shall not speak for much longer, as I believe that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
If I understood the other arm of the policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it was that he would abolish prescription charges at some stage and fund that substantial sum of money by increasing income tax. Has he considered what that would mean for pensioners, who are currently exempt from prescription charges, but who are certainly not exempt from income tax? Has he tried that line on the pensioners? Has he—

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does my hon. Friend know how much that would cost the taxpayer? If not, would he let me know later?

Mr. Newton: It would cost about £150 million. That is the income from prescription charges. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has said that he will add that to income tax.
Having commented on the main points raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I want to make another point, on which I pressed the hon. Gentleman in interventions during his speech. However clear the House may feel that the hon. Gentleman's position is on prescription charges — and I, at least, thought that he shifted his position from the beginning to the end of his speech—we need to have a clear understanding of what a Labour Government's attitude would be to those who come to this country as visitors and are treated under the Health Service. We need to know whether that would be free.
The Government's position on that matter is absolutely clear, and has been throughout. We think that it is reasonable that people coming as visitors to this country should be expected to cover the costs of the medical treatment that they receive here, in the same way as citizens of this country who have to visit the United States, for example, are expected to insure within the terms of the health service operating in that country, and have appropriate cover for most other countries in the world.
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British public believe that that is common sense. They would regard it as something of scandal if nothing had been done about people coming to this country, often—although this is difficult to check specifically—with the intention of receiving free treatment on the Health Service. That prospect is obviously re-opened by the implied policy stated by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tonight.

Mr. Haynes: rose——

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Ashfield is great at diversionary tactics. Let me just——

Mr. Haynes: Do not dodge the issue.

Mr. Newton: I would not want to dodge the hon. Gentleman, nor would I want to tempt him into making more of his flattering remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, which have kept her in the newspapers heavily for the best part of six weeks.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister is jealous.

Mr. Newton: I am not looking to the hon. Gentleman to describe me as attractive or pretty. I shall leave him to continue his dialogue with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
I shall return to the serious issue from which the hon. Member for Ashfield was trying, understandably, to divert the House. The debate should not be allowed to end this evening without a much clearer-cut statement from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on his party's policy on charging those from overseas who come to Britain to receive treatment on the National Health Service, or to need treatment on it while they are here for another reason. Whether the cost is £6 million or any other sum, there is a point of principle, and certainly of common sense, that needs to be established. We are entitled to a clearer answer than anything that we have heard so far from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
With the leave of the House, I shall happily comment upon any of the other contributions that are made in the debate. For the moment, I shall rest my case.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall vote against the Government measures that are before us. I have done so on previous occasions when charges have been increased by more than the rate of inflation since the Government have come to power.
Although there are difficulties, I do not take the unrealistic line that the Labour party propounds. There is no doubt that the rate of increase in the charges since 1979 has been substantially above the rate of inflation. There

was an increase of 125 per cent. within the first year alone of the Government coming to office. If the basic prescription charge had been raised in line with inflation since 1979, the charge would now be about 37p. If the charge had been raised in line with inflation from the time that the moderating charge was introduced in the early 1950s, it would be about £1. Unfortunately, the Government have not been consistent. Indeed, this year's increases were such that the Daily Telegraph on the day after the Minister's announcement, described them as "higher than expected". That appeared on the front page in the leading article.
The second unfairness about the increase in the charges in that there is a 9 per cent. increase in the basis prescription charge while the amenity beds charge is increased by only 8·3 per cent. over two years. and private out-patients' charges have been increased by only 6·1 per cent. this year. There should be a consistency in the increase in the changes
There is an unfairness in treatment between the NHS generally and the private sector. There is also the issue of uncollected charges. To impose charges that amount to the rate of inflation and then to fail to collect them leads to a double disadvantage. I hope that we shall hear sooner rather than later about what the Minister intends to do about uncollected charges. I believe that he owes me a letter on that issue. I ask him also to justify the lower than 9 per cent. charge that has been imposed on the private sector.

Mr. Dobson: The Minister does not owe the hon. Member as much as the private patients owe the NHS.

Mr. Hughes: I have made the point: there is a lot of uncollected money, not least in Camberwell health authority area, part of which I represent.
The view of the Liberal party has never been that prescription charges should be abolished. Indeed, right from the beginning the Labour Government provided for charges in the legislation by which the Health Service was set up. The moderating fee was introduced early in the life of the National Health Service. I have always believed that a fee is proper because people need to be reminded that they are getting things which cost the public sector money. After all, 75 per cent of people are exempt. In general terms that covers the most vulnerable groups.
The Minister should answer one further valid point that has been made. The British Medical Association and other professional bodies make the point consistently that the level of charges now is a deterrent to some people having prescriptions. That is clear evidence that the substantial increase since 1979 is unjustified. I accept that there should be charges but when charges start to deter, that is tilting the charging balance too far in the wrong direction.
It is also ludicrous that some prescriptions, if obtained through the NHS, will cost £2·40 if these regulations are accepted, when their real cost is substantially less. I appreciate that nothing can be done about this before we vote tonight on the regulations. but the Minister should look into the matter. Some commonly used and easily obtainable drugs are available for, say, 50p. In such cases people should not have to pay the substantial amount of £2·40. Of course, there is always an averaging job to do, but, as I understand it, 32 per cent. of prescriptions issued cost in real terms less than the £2·40 charge.
There is no reason why people coming to Britain should not be required to pay. I have a clear view on that. As the


Minister rightly said, when we travel abroad we have to insure ourselves and make proper contingency plans. People should not come to Britain with the presumption or expectation that they will be treated free.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate. As I understand it, he says that he agrees with the principle of charges being made. In a sense he could not deny that, because that point was made by Lord Grimond when the Labour party introduced prescription charges. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce the criterion of charges at a level which will not deter people from getting prescriptions, what evidence can he produce to the House that the present level of charge is deterring people who would otherwise take up prescriptions?

Mr. Hughes: There is a factual answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question. The number of prescriptions issued has gone down. There are several reasons. General practitioners and dispensers can testify to one reason, about which there has been much survey evidence—that the level of charge has a deterrent effect.
The argument about prescription charges is always how one balances the books for the Health Service. The Health Service benefits from charges.
The Minister may have seen in New Society last September an article headed :
Should drugs be free? The Labour party last week promised to abolish prescription charges. Jeremy Laurance asks if this is a sensible priority.
The article ended :
Removing the charges risks stimulating demand, and putting an extra financial burden on an already stretched NHS.
My colleagues and I cannot say that we will abolish prescription charges, much though we would like to do so in an ideal world. Something else in the Health Service would suffer if that were done. There will be prescription charges, but at no stage will they be increased by us by more than the irate of inflation, as far as one can possibly help or predict that. However, I am unwilling to compromise other areas of health care when the majority of the vulnerable are exempt. Certainly, a few people still suffer when they should not, and exemptions should be extended. However, in general terms, the criticism is not that there are prescription charges but that under this Government those charges have increased much more than they need have done, and have done so with unfair consequences.

Mr. Tony Marlow: There is something deeply disagreeable these days about the nature of the Labour party. Because Labour Members have lost the political argument, they seem to concentrate on personal attack. There is grave disgrace as far as their party is concerned at the moment. Where they are still involved in the political argument, they seek not to illuminate but to misrepresent.
Who would have thought from the behaviour of those few Labour Members who are here this evening that on one occasion during this debate — a deeply important debate, so we are led to believe by the Labour party— there were only three Labour Members present? That, too is a disgrace. Who would have thought that during the lifetime of this caring Government there has been an increase of one quarter in expenditure on the Health

Service? For every £4 that was spent when this caring Government came to power, £5 is now spent on the needs of the unhealthy and of the people who we in this country, and in this Government, want to take care of? Who would have thought from the weasel words of Opposition Members that three quarters of prescription charges do not need to be paid and that three quarters of prescriptions are paid for by the taxpayer, and quite rightly so, as well? Who would have thought that the most disadvantaged in society do not have to pay prescription charges? Who would have thought that all men over 65, women over 60, children under 16 and mothers do not have to pay prescription charges? The chronically sick do not have to pay prescription charges. Season tickets are available for those who want them to pay for their prescription charges.
Opposition Members do not care. They do not want to inform; they want to misinform. When there is rationalisation in the Health Service, when old, inefficient and inadequate resources are put on one side and the money saved from those resources is put into new hospitals, new buildings and new operating theatres, we do not hear anything from Opposition Members. All they seek to do is to misrepresent. All they seek to do, for their own grubby political ends, is to lower people's faith and to undermine their trust in the National Health Service for their dirty, grubby, deep, unpleasant, sanctimonious ends.
Out of the £1·8 billion that prescriptions cost this country, a mere £145 million is raised through prescription charges. That money is spent in the Health Service. That money is spent on providing free syringes for people who did not have them before, for diabetics. This is another side of the caring Government. What is the Labour party going to do? It will not get into power, but what would it do if it did get into power? Would it provide those free syringes? If it did, where would it get the money from? About £145 million is spent on care in the Health Service as a result of prescription charges being paid only by those who can afford to pay them.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is on page three now.

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Deputy Speaker, for 27 minutes of this debate, that giggling idiot on the Labour Front Bench——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not helping the debate. He should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Marlow: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spent 40 per cent. of the debate addressing the House with weasel words and reading from his text word by word, yet he is accusing me of reading when I have no notes before me.
Labour Members have no policies or facts. All they seek to do is to disrupt, to undermine and to lower people's faith in the Health Service that the Government are rightly giving to the country.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has reaffirmed from the Front Bench that the next Labour Government will proceed to reduce, and eventually to abolish, prescription charges. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why there should be such maniacal screeches from the Conservative Benches.
My time goes back further than that of my hon Friend and I am not sure what stage of development he had reached in 1966——

Mr. Dobson: Innocence.

Mr. Foot: Yes, innocence and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend retains a large proportion of that innocence even now. I remember vividly how the Conservative party did everything possible to oppose the introduction of a free National Health Service. Tory Members voted against it on Second Reading and again on Third Reading, which was a further confirmation of their opposition to the principle of the service. One of the elements that they particulary hated was the idea that the service should be free to the patient. Because of the Socialist idea to provide the service on the basis of need, not money, and other practical reasons, the service was introduced in the first place. That was undoubtedly why Conservatives at that time were so bitterly opposed to it.
I know that we cannot necessarily restore the NHS all in one go, although it would not be impossible. I understand that the cost would be £360 million, and in the Budget the Government could easily have raised £360 million from people who have been drawing £360 million in tax reliefs ever since 1979. They could easily contribute that sum, partly to restore the principle of a free Health Service, and partly to restore some parts of the Health Service——

Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: No, I shall not give way. Because of the way in which the Government have mismanaged the arrangement for this debate there is hardly a minute left, so I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman is in a fit condition to be given way to.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that your hearing is at least as good as mine. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind by making a slur like that. On reflection he may feel that he should not only withdraw it but give me a chance to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the right hon. Gentleman was saying was not clear to me.

Mr. Foot: I am glad that the Labour party is now recommitted to the restoration of a free NHS. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope——

Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: I hope that the——

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was getting to his feet to withdraw the imputation that I was incapable of making an intervention. Will he withdraw it, or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman did not make any specific allegation about the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] The right hon. Gentleman did not feel that the hon. Gentleman was making the right interjection.

Mr. Foot: I did not hear you make any request to me to withdraw my comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not think that I have said anything that requires to be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that if he had made any allegations that the hon. Gentleman was in some sort of condition, he would withdraw it.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Foot: If I had thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is addressing me.

Mr. Foot: rose

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had called Mr. Foot. He was going to make some explanation to me.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that I made any reflection on the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that required any withdrawal. If he thinks that any withdrawal is necessary, he must have an even thinner skin that I thought. When I depart from any parliamentary procedure and I am asked to withdraw by any occupant of the Chair I obey, but no such requirement has been made.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose——

Mr. Michael Stern: rose——

Mr. Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friends have given a commitment to the restoration of a free National Health Service——

Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was not in a fit state to make his speech or intervention. He has not withdrawn that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman may have meant that the hon. Gentleman was over-excited — [Interruption.] Order. I am anxious to help the House. I did not sense a personal attack.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you are right. I was following your instructions——

Mr. Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I naturally accept your hearing of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I think that we are entitled to some consideration. I was in the direct path of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and it seemed to many Conservative Members that there was a clear implication in what he said. One would hate to think that the right hon. Gentleman was using his seniority in the House to get away with something that many hon. Members would not be allowed to get away with.

Mr. Foot: Anyone who listened to what I said could see how justified it was.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I am not in a fit state to speak in the House. Your must have heard that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say that any hon. Member was not in a fit state.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should study Hansard tomorrow and look at the facts of the matter.
I am sorry that more time was not provided by the Government for the debate. I am sorry also that some Conservative Members thought it advisable to take up time with bogus points of order to stop the debate proceeding.
It is right that we should make clear to the country that one of our objectives is to re-establish a free National Health Service. We know that it will cost something. I should like to see it extended to the restoration of a proper dental service, the restoration of a proper optical service and the restoration of the ideals that prevailed when the service was introduced, which was why the Conservatives tried to prevent its being brought into being. That is the kind of service that we want to see re-established. The sooner we start that task, the sooner we shall be able to carry it through to completion.
At the beginning of his speech the Minister for Health pretended that the Prime Minister had not sought to mislead the public on whether the Government intended to introduce prescription charges. The Prime Minister said that she had no intention of introducing prescription charges, yet we are discussing those increases. No hon. Member could make that excuse and think that he would get away with it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I want to ask the Minister one factual question which concerns dental charges. My evidence, frankly, is only anecdotal, but it seems to many of us that decisions are made not necessarily on the clinical judgments of dentists, but on their assumptions, right or otherwise, about a patient's ability to pay. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there is a deterrent here. I simply ask, in the time available, whether the Department recognises that there is a problem.

Mr. Newton: I am in some difficulty because there are no proposed changes in dental charges in the regulations.
Let me tell the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that the ideals of the National Health Service, on his analysis, lasted for only about three years because the then Labour Government introduced charges in 1951——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)).

Question put :—

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 142.

Division No. 142]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)





Deakins, Eric
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dubs, Alfred
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert


John, Brynmor
Welsh, Michael


Kennedy, Charles
Winnick, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Chris Smith.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor



McNamara, Kevin





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hirst, Michael


Amess, David
Holt, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Jackson, Robert


Ashby, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Knox, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Latham, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lightbown, David


Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Batiste, Spencer
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Bellingham, Henry
McCrindle, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Maclean, David John


Benyon, William
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
McQuarrie, Albert


Blackburn, John
Major, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Malone, Gerald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Marlow, Antony


Bottomley, Peter
Mather, Sir Carol


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Merchant, Piers


Brinton, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Browne, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Moate, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Butterfill, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Neubert, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Newton, Tony


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Norris, Steven


Conway, Derek
Oppenheim, Phillip


Coombs, Simon
Ottaway, Richard


Cope, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Couchman, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, William (Corby)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Powley, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Price, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Raffan, Keith


Durant, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Rhodes James, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Favell, Anthony
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hayward, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Scott, Nicholas


Heddle, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Silvester, Fred
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Speller. Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitfield, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Terlezki, Stefan
Woodcock, Michael


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Francis Maude.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Defence

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following motion :
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.

Mr. Stanley: The two draft orders are complimentary.
Headquarters United Kingdom Air was first established as a NATO major subordinate command in 1975 and since then has been manned by personnel from the Headquarters Royal Air Force Strike Command. It has now been decided to bring this headquarters into line with other NATO major subordinate commands by establishing a small international staff to integrate the command more closely with NATO which has agreed to provide funding for this measure. We are also taking the opportunity to designate the Commander Submarines, Eastern Atlantic as an international headquarters following the granting of international status by the NATO Defence Planning Council in 1982.
The International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965 designated the headquarters of the three major NATO commanders and three subordinate NATO commanders and also the NATO Channel Committee at Northwood and conferred on them such capacities, immunities and privileges as are needed to achieve their efficient organisation and operation. The effect of the first draft order is to add Headquarters United Kingdom Air and the Commander Submarines, Eastern Atlantic to the list of subordinate headquarters covered by the 1965 order.
The second draft order similarly amends the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965. This order was made under section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which provides for the application to visiting forces of law relating to home forces.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We welcome the fact that CINCUKAIR and COMSUBEASTLANT are to become international headquarters. Our air and submarine forces play a vital role in NATO's collective defence. Therefore, it is sensible that representatives from the armed forces of our allies should be constantly available and we welcome the installation of a small international staff at these places.
Of particular importance to NATO is CINCUKAIR because one of Britain's most important roles in war would be as a staging post for the reinforcement of Europe. Air defences are absolutely critical if allied defence plans are to have any credibility, yet according to senior RAF officers our air defences are in peril. We rely on 30-year-old Lightnings which leak and 30-year-old Shackletons with no adequate radar and not enough pilots. By making CINCUKAIR an international command headquarters we will give our allies every


opportunity to voice their concern about the lamentable state of our conventional air defences, and then perhaps the Government will do something about it.
I have one question to ask about CONSUBEASTLANT. Will the command remain at Northwood, which is already an international headquarters? If it is to stay there, why is there a need for the change?
I should like to move to the amendment order for the Visiting Forces Act 1952 so that it may apply to the two new international headquarters. Since that Act came into effect in 1952, we have had a number of reservations about it. Indeed, on Second Reading, Mr. Eric Fletcher, the former Labour Member for Islington, East, said :
This Bill … removes from the jurisdiction of the courts of this country a very large number of people … There has not been anything like that in this country since the Middle Ages … when there was a certain Papal jurisdiction which could defeat the claims of the English common law courts." —[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 586.]
It looks as though the Visiting Forces Act is taking over the role of the medieval papacy. Therefore, I have a number of questions to put to the Minister.
Can the Minister assure us that, despite the internationalisation of these establishments, they will at all times be guarded by British service personnel? Can the Minister assure us that any foreign service personnel working at these two establishments who break British law will be brought to justice and that they will be kept in the United Kingdom pending investigations of any allegations against them and not flown quickly home to avoid investigations, perhaps resulting in injustice to British citizens? Will civilians in the United Kingdom have recourse to the law on compensation if they are the victims of motor or other accidents involving foreign service men from these two establishments?
These two orders, although small and technical, are important. We welcome the fact that these headquarters will be part of an internationally recognised headquarters and that international staff will be there. The Labour party regards Britains contribution to NATO as the most important part that we play in having an effective defence for our country.
The Visiting Forces Act will be a continuous source of embarrassment to successive Governments until something is done to satisfy public worry about the effects of the apparent exemption of visiting forces from the ordinary course of the law. That is a problem. We realise that the Visiting Forces Act had the best of intentions, but to give every member of visiting forces the equivalent status of a foreign diplomat or ambassador seems somewhat overgenerous in the circumstances. There is a need for this matter to be properly considered again by the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We welcome the integration of NATO commands which is evident in the two orders. When I hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) waxing eloquent about Labour's commitment to NATO, my mind goes quickly back to that recent Washington visit and the attempt to explain how NATO could continue with no American nuclear forces as part of our strategic deterrent. But, thankfully, that issue goes wider than these two orders.

Mr. McNamara: What has happened to the great Liberal tradition of democracy when majorities at party conferences are overturned on the whims of leadership on exactly that same principle?

Mr. Beith: I am glad to say that the majority at every Liberal conference I have ever attended, which has been all of them in recent years, have supported the maintenance of NATO's strategic nuclear deterrent on British soil. As long as the deterrent is necessary, they will continue to do so.
I share with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North concern about aspects of the Visiting Forces Act. They have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) as well. I have one point to put to the Minister which should be fresh in his mind. He will have been looking at the Act because these orders extend its application. Why do not the relevant Government Departments—in part the Home Office and not just the Ministry of Defence — collect and retain information about how the Act operates in practice? My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil pointed out that it was necessary to obtain from readily available information in the United States the details that
420 members of the United States air force had infringed British law in relation to drug abuse and that 388 of them had been removed from the jurisdiction of the British courts". —[Official Report, 20 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 402.]
We all know that there has been a serious problem in the American forces and the American authorities are doing their best to deal with it. It is not intended as a criticism to raise the matter in that way. The concern is that the information is simply not being collected. This gives the impression that British Government Departments do not know how serious the problem is, do not know how much it is impinging on British life in the areas concerned, do not therefore know whether the problem is properly controlled, and do not, of course, know the extent of punishment of those service men.
I should like the Minister to say whether, in the light of these extensions, he is doing something about the obvious gap in the information that Government Departments ought to hold.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to say something on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Last Friday I attended a political meeting in Dumbarton. There was much concern, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, about the relationship between service men and a drug problem. I shall not exaggerate; I do not believe that it is widespread, but it is there, and we require a statement on the policy of the Ministry of Defence.
Part of the debate relates to the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT. On 27 January, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) saying that he in turn had received a letter from his constituent Mr. George Turner, of 23, St. Philip's street, Blackburn, Lancashire. My hon. Friend wrote :
I should be most grateful if you could let me have any up to date information about this so I may decide how to pursue the matter for him.
The letter that he received from his constituent read :
As a retired ex Royal Air Force Technician, (30 years service), I am curious as to whether any disciplinary action was taken against the submarine Commander regarding the


`lost' ship's log —a most serious offence, and definitely a court martial offence … I would be grateful for any information.
On 10 March, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces wrote a letter with the reference number D/US of S(AF)RNF 2301. It stated :
As Mr. Turner may be aware, a Board of Inquiry was held into the apparent disappearance of HMS Conqueror's navigational log for April to September 1982, once this had been discovered in October 1984. The then Secretary of State for Defence"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the second order or the first? He must relate his speech to the orders that we are discussing. It seems to me that he is now dealing with an internal disciplinary matter of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Dalyell: I was referring to the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT, which is quite clearly in the explanatory note. The Minister properly said that it was about the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT, and I do not know what the Clerk was suggesting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make those accusations. I merely want to keep him to the orders. One is addressed to the desirability of extending the privileges to the two headquarters, and the other to the desirability of the change in legal status of the headquarters.

Mr. Dalyell: In his opening remarks, the Minister clearly said in our hearing that the debate was about the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT. Those were his words.
I shall be brief. Let me add that the Ministry of Defence knows about the reference to the letter.
I now give a recent quotation from the principal warfare officer on board a Navy frigate. He says :
I was in the Falklands and when we got back I was responsible for all the records and logs on our ship. We thought something odd was going on because instead of being told to send our log books off to Hayes as normal, we were told to collect all our log books together and send them to the Ministry of Defence. It had never happened before, and I know for a fact that this order was given to all the ships and submarines as well. I know exactly where the Conqueror's logs are, they're at the Ministry of Defence. Everyone in the Navy knows that. The so-called missing log book is a load of rubbish.
I think it is fair to ask, after all this time, the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was asked: what became of those log books? Is not this an opportunity for the Ministry of Defence to come clean, and say that no log book ever went missing from that ship? I take it on my own responsibility that I was told by members—in the plural—of the crew of the Conqueror that, if I thought that any of them had pinched the control room log book of the only nuclear submarine that has ever been used in earnest to put as some kind of ornament on their sideboard, I must be out of my mind. No one did that. There was a very efficient debriefing. No log book ever went missing. It was used by the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), as a smokescreen on the morning that he was to appear before the Select Committee.
It is all a load of hooey. I believe that, rather than in the submarine control room headquarters, the log book of

the Conqueror is sitting in the Ministry of Defence, where it ought to be, and that it is known to Ministry of Defence Ministers that it is among the public records. It is all a load of rubbish, and it is legitimate to raise the matter in this debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When the Minister of State for the Armed Forces introduced the order, he drew attention to the Visiting Forces Act 1952. It is reasonable that hon. Members should ask him, when he replies to the debate, to deal with the effect that the new orders will have on the operation of the 1952 Act and to say whether he will inform the House in future about offences that would be tried by British courts if the Visiting Forces Act did not give almost complete immunity to members of foreign forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to Mr. Eric Fletcher, the previous Member of Parliament for my constituency, who in a debate in 1952 said :
This Bill, in effect, removes from the jurisdiction of the courts or this country a very large number of people. In other words, the members of the visiting Forces and their civilian components will be able to commit crimes which cannot be tried in the courts of this country. That is something which, prima facie, shocks those who have been brought up to respect the deep-seated constitutional principles of our land." —[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 586.]
He went on to say that there had been nothing like it in this country since the middle ages.
It is extraordinary that the Act should have been on the statute book for so long and that its provisions should be allowed to be extended by the passing of orders late at night. The large number of American forces stationed in this country — about 30,000 of them — have complete immunity from prosecution under both the civil and criminal law. Questions have been asked on a number of occasions about the number of offences that have been committed that have been recognised as offences by the American forces leading to the removal of those individuals from this country, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench have been absolutely silent.
We are entitled to ask when the Minister expects to be in a position to tell us about the operation of this Act. It is unacceptable that he should be able to move yet a further extension of the Act, but not answer questions about the number of drug offences, motoring offences or other offences that have been committed by members of visiting forces who have been allowed to get off scot-free.
The Government say that the collection of information is difficult. There must be something very badly wrong with the arrangements under which American forces are stationed here if no information is passed to the Ministry of Defence about what members of the visiting forces have done.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what information is collected in the Ministry of Defence and whether local police and local courts keep any records of offences committed by members of the visiting forces. I object strongly to the Visiting Forces Act. I see no reason why forces from a foreign power stationed in this country should be exempt from British law. I find it even more offensive that we do not even know what offences they have committed and that all we have is the information


collected by Duncan Campbell and others, which has been printed in the New Statesman. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked whether COMSUBEASTLANT would remain at Northwood. It will. He asked why, if COMSUBEASTLANT had international status in 1982, it was now necessary to involve it in the orders. Although it had international status agreed by NATO in 1982, there has not been a convenient opportunity formally to designate it for the purpose of this legislation until the orders came forward. This is a tidying up provision. We have taken advantage of the opportunity created by the designation of UKAIR to designate COMSUBEASTLANT at the same time.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised various points about the Visiting Forces Act 1952. It is important to make one or two general observations because from what has been said, it is clear that there is considerable misunderstanding about it. Although the Act is British legislation, it reflects a NATO-wide agreement involving reciprocal arrangements regarding the jurisdiction provisions for military personnel stationed in each others countries.
Exactly the same legal rights which are given to American service men in Britain are enjoyed by British service men in Germany. They are important to our service men there. The Act has now been on the statute book for more than 30 years, and the criticisms that have been expressed by Opposition Members must be seen against the background of several Administrations being responsible for overseeing the Act, which has evidently proved satisfactory to successive Labour Governments.

Mr. Corbyn: In view of what the Minister has said about reciprocal arrangements, can he say whether the German civilian authorities are informed—and publish the information — of the misdemeanours of British service men stationed there as part of the British Army of the Rhine?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue with my speech as I was about to deal with that matter.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly under a misapprehension about the effect of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 if he talks of American service men having widespread immunity from United Kingdom law. The provisions are somewhat complex, but they do not represent overall immunity. The hon. Gentleman might like to read, in Hansard of 19 December 1983, the detailed and excellent exposition of the Act's effects by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. If he does, the hon. Gentleman will see that the full effect of United Kingdom law applied to all offences committed off duty, which are the great majority. Even for offences committed on duty, there is reserved to the host country a right to request the Government of the visiting forces that the right of jurisdiction should remain with the host country and that

the Government of the visiting forces should surrender their right to exercise jurisdiction. It is not correct to suggest that this legislation creates some wholesale immunity or exemption from the effect of British law.
The statistics on offences show that more than 2,000 American service men have been convicted in the United Kingdom courts, and that the vast majority of those convictions relate to road traffic offences, which were specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. As to the adequacy of the statistics that are collected within the Government about the operation of the Visiting Forces Act—a point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed — I will draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. His Department has the lead ministerial responsibility for this legislation, and I am sure that he will note the points that have been made on that score in this debate.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am interested in what he says about civilian offences committed when troops are off duty, but I am concerned about the actions of American forces on duty — for example, when they have been travelling with the cruise missile conveys in the Salisbury plain area. I have reason to believe that offences have been committed by those soldiers against British civilians, but no action has been taken and no redress is possible for the civilians, because those service men were on duty at the time and the Visiting Forces Act therefore grants immunity. For example, there was a problem when an American vehicle ran into a churchyard wall, causing it severe damage, and slightly injuring some people at the same time.

Mr. Stanley: Any particular details that the hon. Gentleman produces will be examined.
I stress that the provisions of British law apply to American service men here, whether they are on or off duty. The only issue is over the rights of jurisdiction. and those rights can be applied by the Government of the visiting forces in respect of their service men for offences that have been committed on duty, but that does not mean that while visiting service men are here they are not subject to United Kingdom law.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will, I hope, be aware that these orders relate to the designation of COMSUBEASTLANT, which is a NATO headquarters. He was referring to a matter that arose in not a NATO, but a national, context. He will be aware that the loss of the log of HMS Conqueror has been the subject of successive parliamentary statements, and the outcome of the board of inquiry was the subject of detailed investigation by Parliament and of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State. I am afraid that I cannot add to that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Portillo.]

PETITION

Rolls-Royce plc

Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to ask leave to present a petition, which has been signed by more than 267 pensioners of Rolls-Royce plc. These pensioners live in my constituency, in other Bristol constituencies and wider afield, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon (Mr. Cope), for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), and in and around Coventry.
The petition relates to a difference between a pension that is given to Rolls-Royce pensioners who were members of the former Rolls-Royce pension scheme and other, similar pensioners, who were members of the former Bristol Siddeley Engines pension scheme and who retired between 1978 and 1984.
The petitioners pray :
That this honourable House should ask the Government while it retains its position as sole shareholder in Rolls-Royce plc to procure that the company give equal treatment to those Bristol Siddeley pensioners who retired between 1 April 1978 and 31 December 1983 to the treatment given to such pensioners who retired after 31 December 1983.
I willingly add my support, as indeed do many of the colleagues to whom I referred earlier, to that prayer.

To lie upon the Table.

A34, Stone

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now ajourn.—[ Mr. Portello]

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am extremely grateful for this opportunity, even at this late hour, to raise this issue. In the words of the letter that I wrote to Mr. Speaker on 20 March :
I would be grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the need for a bypass of Stone, Staffordshire, in my constituency.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for sharing this late hour with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with me and with the Whip on the Government Front Bench. I shall be suitably brief.
Perhaps I can put the problems of Stone — a delightful town and I take this opportunity to invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit it to see the problems that I am about to describe to the House in practical everyday terms—in the context of the correspondence that I will now recite to the House.
In a letter dated 17 November 1986, Mr. Onions, the county surveyor to the Staffordshire county council—a man whom I respect enormously and who I must say is a revered constituent of mine — wrote to Mr. John Blundell, the chairman of the Stone chamber of trade— and I want a place on record my gratitude, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, for the support and encouragement that I have received from him and his officers who are present in the Gallery this evening—as follows :
As you are probably aware, Stone high street is part of the primary route, the A520. It is the county council policy to encourage heavy commercial vehicles to use the motorway, the trunk road and the primary road network wherever possible instead of the more unsuitable class 2, class 3, and unclassified roads.
Of course, that includes the A34. He went on to say :
It is not practical to restrict heavy commercial vehicles from using the high street in Stone until such time——
I use my words carefully
as the bypass is constructed.
Mr. Blundell, the chairman of the Stone chamber of trade, subsequently wrote earlier this year to Mr. Onions, stating :
At a recent meeting of the chamber of trade the question of heavy goods vehicles was again raised by our members, particularly in view of the extensive roadworks to be carried out over the next 16 weeks in the lower section of Stone high street. I enclose a list of 18 different companies who appear to be using Stone high street as a pre-test circuit, and on the grounds of safety and convenience to the shopping public we would request that these vehicles should at least be prevented from using Stone in this way whilst these roadworks are being constructed.
Mr. Onions, the county surveyor, then replied to Mr. Blundell on 23 February :
As I previously pointed out, high street Stone is part of the primary road network and it is not practical to restrict the movement of heavy lorries until such time as a suitable bypass is available. It is certainly not the intention of the county council to impose a selective ban on training vehicles.
I have raised on behalf of my constituents generally and on behalf of the traders and shoppers in Stone in particular the question of the urgency of the need for a bypass around the town. The Labour county councillor for Stone, Mr. R. D. Osbourne, wrote to Mrs. Elizabeth Ball, the secretary of the Stone chamber of trade, as recently as 7 April 1987 in the following terms :


Thank you for your invitation to the Stone Chamber of Trade meeting. Unfortunately, I am working away at the present time so I will be unable to attend. Regarding the information about the Stone bypass road, things are not clear at this time. However, as soon as I have returned to Stone, I will be looking into the matter and I will report to the Stone Town Council.
Mrs. Ball wrote to me on the same date as follows:
You will note that although we have raised the bypass issue in the press, at Town Council meetings and directly to the various local authorities by letter, we have had little active response.
Probably the best two quotes are from County
Councillor Osbourne,
things are not clear at this time,
and the county surveyor:
Relief from this long-awaited town-centre bypass is as far off as ever and no place can be found for it in the building programme for the foreseeable future.
Mrs. Ball wrote:
As you know, a bypass has been talked of for these last 20 years at least, and the public inquiry with the new town council was held five years ago. It would appear"—
here modesty must creep in—
that no one with the exception of yourself is willing to grasp this issue at any level and we, the Chamber of Trade, support you in what you are trying to do.
It is for these reasons — uncertainty, indefiniteness and procrastination—that I raise the issue this evening. I accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will probably not be able to give me an assurance that he can impose upon the county council, as the highway authority, his powers of persuasion to encourage it to bring this much-needed and long-overdue bypass to the top of the Staffordshire county council's priority programme, but I hope that by raising the issue in the Mother of Parliaments, and from here through the media in Staffordshire generally, and in mid-Staffordshire particularly, some pressure will be put upon the county council to be sensitive towards and understanding of the needs and wishes of the electorate of Stone, the shoppers and the ratepayers, for a long-overdue and much-needed bypass.
I say for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I imagine that on your journeys to your constituency you have been through Stone high street from time to time, though not in the direction I am talking about because it is a one-way street.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Mr. Deputy Speaker would be on the bypass.

Mr. Heddle: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would have been on the bypass, had it been constructed. As it has not been, that has not been possible. I hope that you will use the bypass in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to promise me that it will be constructed in the not-too-distant future.
I shall describe the historic town of Stone. It is an intimate, close-knit town. Its architecture is typified by low-rise buildings of appearance typical of my part of Staffordshire, which gives it a pleasant human scale. The town centre is basically linear in form, with the high street — the main shopping street, a one-way street that is narrow in parts to the extent of 12 ft or 15 ft—forming the main spinal feature. There has been some consolidation of individual parcels of land due chiefly to

new development. The general pattern of land use to the rear of high street premises is one of long, narrow curtilages which, together with footpaths and access roads, give a pronounced grain that runs broadly at right angles to the high street.
The high street, which forms the core of the existing conservation area — it is an area in which there is a predominance of buildings of architectural and historic interest, and certainly grades 2 and 3 listed buildings—is of particularly pleasant architectural composition. The street, with its more or less continuous facades of two or three-storey buildings, gently curves and widens uphill. The predominant materials are brick, stone, stucco, tile and slate. A number of the buildings have interesting detailing in some early shop fronts, which still remain, but with the continual thunder of heavy traffic they bear the appearance of being careworn and to an extent show signs of settlement.
There are a number of buildings of individual significance within the town centre, several of which are listed as being of historic and architectural interest. The value of the architecture along the high street and in the adjoining streets lies particularly in the total effect of the group of buildings.
In Stone town centre, the local plan modified by Stafford borough council following an extensive public inquiry and considerable public consultation, said:
The Staffordshire county council has made provision in its current highway works programme for works in Stone town centre commencing in 1989 or 1990, although any programming of works will ultimately he dependent upon adequate funds.
I ask my hon. Friend to give two assurances if it is possible for him to do so tonight. First, can he assure me that those adequate funds, given the return of this Administration in the election that will intervene between now and 1988, will be available to the county council? Secondly, will he use his powers of persuasion to ensure that those funds are directed towards the provision of a bypass for the town centre of Stone?
The report continues:
The borough council considers that improvement to the road network in the town centre is to be welcomed in principle. A number of highways converge on the town centre. Traffic currently has a considerable environmental impact on the High street and the adjoining streets, particularly during periods of peak flow when the amenity and the quietude of these streets is seriously affected. The problem is particularly acute to the south of Market place where High street tapers and the carriageway and footways become narrower.
For those hon. Members who have not travelled from north to south along Stone high street I point out that it is narrow. Because it is narrow, heavy commercial vehicles delivering goods to the shops inevitably have to park on the pavements, thus causing inconvenience to young married mothers pushing prams and to the elderly, too, who find it impossible on occasions to move along the footpaths.
Apart from the day-to-day bustle and commercial convenience for which the heavy goods vehicles use the high street, as I have just mentioned in reciting the correspondence to the House. Stone high street is used by a large number of companies to test their drivers in the use of heavy goods vehicles. The county council, whilst trying to encourage them to use the artery roads on the outside of the town, has failed to do so and Stone has become a veritable commercial race track, with the attendant risk to life and limb that that involves.
The report to which I referred earlier says:
It is considered that in order to maximise the benefits of the inner ring road"—
to which my hon. Friend may allude in his reply—
as a bypass route, complete pedestrianisation of the High street should be pursued as an ultimate aim.
What I am asking my hon. Friend to do in his reply is, first, to assure me, my constituents in general, and the shoppers, traders and chamber of trade in Stone in particular, that those adequate funds will be continually made available so that the bypass, in whatever form and wherever it should be planned, will remain available. Secondly, his Department should use its powers of persuasion and, dare I say, pressure, to try to ensure that Staffordshire county council carries out the wishes of the elected members and the electorate in my constituency so that Stone has its bypass as a matter of urgent priority. As soon as the decision is made and the priority struck, there should be a public consultation exercise to find out whether the electorate and shoppers require pedestrianisation and to ensure that when the bypass comes—soon cannot be soon enough—it is in a form, in a place and of a design and structure that meets the wishes of the majority of my constituents in Stone.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being kind enough to reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It is always a pleasure to share either the Chamber of the House of Commons or a Committee Room with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). We spent many arduous hours on the Housing and Building Control Bill of 1984 which extended rights to council tenants. My hon. Friend's well-known and well-deserved reputation in matters relating to housing is equalled by his work relating to transport.
I remember my hon. Friend saying to me how much he supported the Government's aim to get through traffic on to through roads so that, as he said, local traffic could be returned to those who are shopping and, in residential areas, to those who are going to school, and to pensioners who want to be able to move around, with or without a car in safety, without being pursued by heavy goods vehicles using unsuitable roads. The work done by my hon. Friend during his time in the House has made it possible for road casualties to be reduced, economic prosperity to be supported and the environment to be improved. No one wants to cover the countryside, or the towns, unnecessarily with concrete and tarmacadam. The occasional building of bypasses, relief roads or link roads allows other thoroughfares to be restored to their proper purpose, which is to allow people to move around in safety. Those three considerations—economic prosperity, environmental relief and road casualty reduction — lie behind what my hon. Friend has described as the keen desire of the people in Stone to have a bypass.
I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) for being here this evening. His is perhaps the unheard hand, guiding the Department of Transport. I am sure that his constituents would like to know that in our stewardship of the

Department of Transport since 1979 we have managed, with a reduced budget, to increase capital spending on roads, and to increase money for national roads unlike our predecessors who, from 1974 to 1979 halved the money available for new national roads. Unlike our predecessors, we have not had to put on the immediate braking effect of 1976 when the International Monetary Fund came in to run the country. We have been able to increase the money available through transport supplementary grant to local highway authorities—in the main, to the county councils — that want to promote schemes that are of more than local importance.
As I hope to show in the next few minutes, it is quite clear that Stone's need for a bypass is of more than local interest because of the through traffic that Stone wants to avoid. I probably speak for those coming down the A520, who do not want to go through Stone unnecessarily. Of course, those who do will benefit as will the town centre which my hon. Friend has described as having a closely-knit character, and the low-rise architecture that is familiar to that part of Staffordshire. I think that he said that it was on a pleasant human scale. I should like him to know that I appreciate the one bypass that Stone has because I was born near the A41 in Newport and members of my family live in the western end of the county of Staffordshire,. near Newport. As one who used to go to the races at Uttoxeter, I can say that that line would take me through Stone. Of course, I should confess that I have not put a bet on a horse since the day before the Gold Cup at Cheltenham when I backed two out of three winners and had to buy cream cakes; but perhaps that is by-the-by.
The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of a bypass, although I am sure that he will understand when I say, with a slight degree of puzzlement, that no Labour or alliance Members seem to be interested in this subject. My hon. Friend knows that the Government place great emphasis on providing bypasses on our national roads, especially to remove heavy lorries from places where people live, work and do their shopping. Our recent achievements in building bypasses and relief roads in the trunk road network, together with the proposals in the revised programme, will continue to help to resolve the conflict between the needs of residents and those of through traffic. In all, the current programme will provide relief for about 280 communities throughout the country. Even then there are some communities on the national network for which no bypass is planned.
In the mid-1950s the construction of the A34 bypass at Stone brought about a much-needed improvement by taking most of the north-south traffic away from the town. My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the other route passing through Stone, which carries considerable volumes of traffic.
For those less familiar with the locality, I should explain that Stone lies roughly midway between Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. The county council, in its wisdom, may have decided to concentrate on some other areas rather than Stone and my hon. Friend, local councillors and the chamber of trade will argue the case for Stone. I would not direct the priorities of the county council. They are, rightly, determined locally. I hope that the county council will read the debate.
I recognise the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to Mr. Onions, the county surveyor, and his staff. Their work in Staffordshire and on the representative bodies for the highway professionals is well respected and Mr. Onions


makes a contribution well beyond the county. I do not want any of my remarks this evening to be taken as a criticism of the council. Unlike Mary Goldring, who in her "Analysis" programme this evening thought that the Government had been trapped into doing the job that is rightly done by local highway authorities, we have a proper partnership on roads, where we look after the national roads, local councils look after the local roads and for local roads of more than local importance the transport supplementary grant arrangements appear to be working well.
My hon. Friend forgot to tell us how the history of Stone is closely linked with the Trent and Mersey canal, which is located on the western edge of the town centre. Perhaps the canal does not provide the type of bypass for freight traffic, so perhaps I should bring the House more up to date. It is Stafford borough council's intention to extend the present conservation area to include the canal and its setting and to exploit this important amenity resource by encouraging canal orientated development or re-use of canal side sites and to improve public access by providing new footpath routes and cycleways between the town centre and the canal site.
Although Stone no longer bears the brunt of A34 traffic, it lies at the junction of a number of highways, including two important local roads which generate a good deal of through traffic—some 9,000 vehicles a day, 10 per cent. of which are heavy vehicles. These are the A51 north-west/south-east route and the A520 north-east/ south-west route. Traffic currently has a considerable environmental impact on the high street and adjoining roads, particularly at peak times, when the amenity and peace of these streets is seriously affected. This is compounded by congestion caused by roadside loading and unloading. Bus stops along the high street can also add to the congestion. I am merely describing the traffic facts in Stone and not criticising the buses or those who use them.
As my hon. Friend said, in May last year Stafford borough council adopted the Stone town centre local plan, which provides for an improved highway network agreed with the local highway authority, Staffordshire county council. A package of highway schemes has been proposed which has as its main element an inner link road to the north east of the high street, but with associated provision of rear access or service roads, re-siting of car parking facilities, re-routing of buses and so on, leading to the eventual pedestrianisation of the high street.
The policies and proposals in the plan are aimed at enhancing the existing character of the town centre, while preserving its vitality and encouraging its efficient functioning as a shopping and commercial centre. My hon. Friend should be congratulated on working closely with the chamber of trade. Sometimes people argue that chambers of trade are interested only in themselves, but plainly they are interested in their customers, just as politicians are interested in their electorates. It is a natural way of representing the true community interests of a local area.
All these are praiseworthy aims indeed. Design of the new road schemes will need to balance highway and environmental objectives by seeking, for example, to keep traffic flowing by restricting the number of turning movements to those needed to give adequate access to the town centre, while minimising the visual impact of any road system by avoiding the demolition of listed or other

interesting buildings. My hon. Friend reminded me that we are discussing local roads which are of course, the responsibility of the local highway authority. Staffordshire county council is able to establish where the needs are in its area. It must decide what the priorities are and how best to promote the necessary improvements.
Local highway authorities submit a transport policies and programme each year to the Department. These documents set out what local road improvements the highway authority wants to do. They contain a programme of likely expenditure according to the priorities for particular schemes, the resources available for carrying them out and the extent of the planning and design work needed. I have not yet mentioned the various statutory processes through which all highway improvement schemes must go. My hon. Friend said that he knew that the schemes would not necessarily satisfy everybody, but that if funds could be made available and a consensus arrived at that would be generally welcomed in Stone.
The TPP is the basis of an authority's bid for highway capital allocation and transport supplementary grant. Grant is paid towards firmly programmed schemes of more than local importance—that is, schemes on roads carrying long distance through traffic. Schemes are not normally approved for grant unless they are due to start in the following year.
In last year's TPP, Staffordshire included the A520 town centre bypass in Stone in its longer term programme. Broadly speaking, that probably means a start in five to 10 years' time. It has presumably taken that decision in the light of competing pressures elsewhere within the county. This is a matter for it and is not an issue on which I would wish to intervene. It is not for me to say which schemes in Staffordshire are the most important. My hon. Friend may decide to take up the question of priority with councillors in Staffordshire. I can tell him that if Staffordshire decided to bring the scheme forward in its programme I would give it careful consideration in assessing whether TSG should be paid. It is certainly the sort of scheme for which TSG is intended. It is on a primary route and will clearly relieve the town centre of through traffic. However, the question whether grant could be paid would rest on the priority that Staffordshire was able to give the scheme, the total resources that were available and the comparative merits of other schemes all over the country that would be competing for funds. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give an advance commitment, but what I have said about it being a primary route and the relief of the town centre is the best indication that I can give.
I understand the problems that counties have in putting schemes in order of priority. I intend to maintain assistance for counties in the way that we have in the past. No Government can commit themselves for future years, but if we can continue to have a response from a Government who are willing to take necessary decisions, the sort of infrastructure spending that is talked about by Opposition parties—what the Prime Minister and I call spending on roads, bypasses and relief roads — can continue to grow in the way in which it has done in the past few years.
Some people may argue that there is not much politics in road safety, bypasses or environmental improvements. They are wrong. Everyone in the House recognises that if we could add capital spending and give the sort of relief for which people are asking we would get the kind of political response that would return a Government —


whenever the election comes within the next year or so — who could continue the sort of work that we have been doing, which is not to be mean or over-optimistic, but to provide the sort of increased programme of bypasses and relief roads for which my hon. Friend so eloquently

argued. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he opened the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate for his attendance.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.